Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — LAW OF THE SEA (GENEVA CONFERENCE)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the British delegation at the Conference on the Sea at Geneva has put forward a proposal for a six-mile territorial limit for fisheries.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the British proposal that the territorial water limit should be extended from three to six miles.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. D. Ormsby-Gore): As the House will be aware, the Geneva Conference is deeply divided on the subject of territorial limits. It became clear at the Conference that there was no prospect whatever of the adoption of a three-mile limit. The purpose of the United Kingdom proposal of six miles was to secure a solution avoiding the serious damage to United Kingdom interests which would result from the widespread adoption of a twelve-mile limit.

Mr. Wall: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him if he can assure the House that the Government will now do all they can to press the American proposal which allows our trawlers to fish in historic areas, as they have done for years past, and to oppose the Canadian proposal which is a twelve-mile limit in which no one is allowed to fish?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is the position. Our delegate at Geneva is supporting the American compromise proposal.

Mr. A. Henderson: May we have an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not agree to any unilateral variation by another Government of their present territorial water limits especially when there are established rights, such as fishing rights?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is certainly the case. I should like to point out to the House that the fact that we have put forward a compromise, or that we support a compromise, does not mean at the end of the day, if that compromise is not adopted, that we cannot return to insisting on a three-mile limit.

Mr. Younger: When this Conference comes to a conclusion, will the Government pay particular attention to the need for informing all sections of the industry and the public here about precisely what the position is? The Minister will be aware that there is very deep feeling on this matter, particularly in the fishing ports, and many sections of the industry might well feel like taking action on their own, which may or may not be wise. They require sound information.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will certainly bear that in mind.

Mr. Edward Evans: Is the Minister aware that there is a feeling in the industry and in other quarters that the Government have been a little hasty in proposing this six-mile limit before exhausting all possibilities of retaining the status quo?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think that would be a very inaccurate interpretation of events. We really stuck to the three-mile limit as long as we possibly could, and it was only when it was perfectly clear that we could not get sufficient support for that arrangement that we tried for a compromise.

Mr. Reeves: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) how much territory he estimates Britain will acquire under the sea, if the articles on the Continental Shelf, proposed by the United Nations International Law Commission for the present Conference on the Law of the Sea at Geneva are adopted;
(2) in view of the British amendment to the articles on the Continental Shelf, prepared by the International Law Commission at the Geneva Conference on the


Law of the Sea, what plans have been prepared for proclaiming the relevant areas of the Continental Shelf to be Crown Lands; and what proposals have been studied for their exploitation.

Mr. Pitman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is his intention to claim exclusive use of the Continental Shelf in the North Sea and English Channel as proposed in Article 68 of the International Law Commission Report at the Geneva Conference, and to lease the oil-drilling rights in such greatly increased British submarine territory; and whether he is satisfied that this does not conflict with the freedom of the seas to shipping in those waters above the Continental Shelf.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what estimate he has made of the area of seabed over which Great Britain will acquire exclusive rights under the articles dealing with the Continental Shelf at the Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea; and what authority will be responsible for its development, under the plans which have been drawn up.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The embodiment of the Geneva Articles in an International Convention would not lead to the acquisition of territory under the sea by the United Kingdom or any other State. The sovereign rights of the coastal State over the Continental Shelf will be limited to those required for the purpose of exploring and exploiting the natural resources of the Shelf. There would be no necessity to "claim" exclusive rights; the rights would be recognised in the Convention.
The rights may be exercised on the Shelf to a depth of 200 metres, or beyond that depth to where the depth of the waters immediately above the Shelf admits of exploitation. The extent is thus not definite. Further, the sharing of the Shelf with neighbouring states would have to be settled by agreement. It is therefore not possible to say over what area of the seabed the United Kingdom would be able to exercise rights.
The draft Articles specifically provide that the rights in the Continental Shelf do not affect the legal status of the waters immediately above the Shelf as high seas. In addition., the exercise of the rights must not result in any unjustifiable interference with navigation, fishing or the

conservation of the living resources of the sea.
I understand that, with the possible exception of the Channel Tunnel, the development of the Continental Shelf of the United Kingdom is not a burning question, and so far as I am aware no plans have yet been made to deal with it.

Mr. Pitman: I should like to ask the Minister of State about this because there are not only our claims but those of France in the English Channel. I understand that a document, No. 21, has been agreed, as to the surroundings of one mile distance from any such drilling operation. It is perfectly clear that the English Channel could and might be completely blocked to shipping by reason of the exploitation of the Continental Shelf in this way. Is not it much better that the Continental Shelf should be free to shipping rather than be exploited in this way?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think it will be free to shipping. My hon. Friend has another Question on the Paper on this point, and I think it will be easier to deal with the matter when we reach that Question.

Mr. Usborne: In view of the great difficulty of getting agreement on this problem, would the right hon. Gentleman consider approaching it from the other end; that is to say, seeing if it is possible to get agreement on the ownership of the high seas outside the territorial limits? Obviously, the United Nations ought to own it and licence it out to the nations. Once that were known, it would be very much easier then to get agreement on the limits of national territorial waters. Has the right hon. Gentleman ever considered approaching it from the opposite side?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: We may consider that, but the Conference has been sitting for some time, and I think that on this aspect of the problem there is a possibility of agreement between the countries.

Mr. Tilney: Will my right hon. Friend consider, too, the claims of the Colonial Commonwealth in this matter and their continental shelves?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly.

Mr. Edward Evans: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the growing anxiety of the


British fishing industry on the proposals, now before the International Conference on the Law of the Sea now meeting at Geneva, to extend the limits of territorial waters beyond the present boundaries, with the result that British vessels would be debarred from fishing in these waters, and that these proposals, if carried into effect, would have adverse effects upon the trawling industry, especially in northern waters; and if he will instruct the British representatives at the Conference to oppose strongly any extension of the present limits.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir. I should have thought that the speeches of my right hon. and learned Friend in Geneva would have made it abundantly clear that Her Majesty's Government share the industry's concern, and with this in mind they have been trying to promote a generally acceptable solution at the Conference.

Mr. Evans: Can the right hon. Gentleman give some indication of the effect of the extension of these fishing limits upon the tonnage and earning capacity of the fishing fleets? Was that taken into consideration when we made the concession?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That was taken into consideration. I understand that the damage that might be done by the extension of territorial fishing waters to six miles would be nothing like as severe as the damage which would be done if they were extended to twelve miles, which is the danger.

Mr. Pitman: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent, at the Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea, the Anglo-Dutch amendment to the proposed articles on the Continental Shelf whereby states shall have the right to tunnel in the seabed, implies the construction of artificial islands from which those tunnels may be entered in extraterritorial waters.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The amendment referred to by my hon. Friend was intended to refer to tunnelling under the sea from terra firma, and does not imply the construction of artificial islands.

Mr. Pitman: In this whole question of the seabed and Continental Shelf, has consideration been given to getting the United Nations, or some other non-national body, to control these areas? Is

not it deplorable that there should be an expansion of nationalism into areas in which nationalism has never been recognised? Is not that the fundamental problem?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No. In the question my hon. Friend has raised, it is a matter of tunnelling, for instance in the search for coal under the sea. It was thought unreasonable that one should have to stop tunnelling for coal under the sea because one had reached the territorial limits of the sea. It is that with which this amendment is dealing.

Mr. D. Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which States have notified him that they have already made claims to the Continental Shelf; and how many of them have notified him that they have started to exploit their claims.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Other States are under no obligation to notify Her Majesty's Government of their claims, and a list of notifications would have no special significance. However, according to the Conference Secretariat at Geneva, twenty-four States have claimed rights in the Continental Shelf. Among them is the United Kingdom, in respect of a number of territories for the international relations of which Her Majesty's Government are responsible. I do not know how many States have begun to exploit their Continental Shelf.

Mr. Tilney: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which nation has the right to exploit the Dogger Bank under the proposals at present being discussed at the Geneva Conference on the Law of the Sea.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: If my hon. Friend is thinking of the fish which inhabit the waters over the Dogger Bank, these waters are part of the high seas, in which the nationals of all States have the right to fish. If my hon. Friend is referring to the Continental Shelf, the Dogger Bank is part of the Continental Shelf of Western Europe. If the States of Western Europe become parties to an international Convention incorporating the Geneva draft Articles, then one or more of them will be entitled to exploit the seabed of the Dogger Bank. Which States would be entitled to do so might have to be the subject of international


agreement. In the absence of agreement and unless another boundary line is justified by special circumstances, the boundary will he the median line between the States concerned.

Mr. Tilney: When my right hon. Friend comes to discuss the Continental Shelf in relation to the Dogger Bank, will he make certain that, in the event of an attempt being made to extract oil from under the Dogger Bank, there is no danger of pollution of the water, to the detriment of our already harassed fishing industry.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That seems a very far cry. I have no knowledge of any idea about trying to exploit oil under the Dogger Bank.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST

Broadcasts

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for how many hours a day vernacular broadcasts are made from British-controlled radio stations to the Persian Gulf, Aden and Somalia regions; and how this compares with vernacular broadcasts from Cairo Radio.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Vernacular broadcasts from British-controlled radio stations to the Persian Gulf, Aden and the Somalia regions are as follows:

(a) The British Broadcasting Corporation Arabic Service broadcasts nine and a half hours a day.
(b) The British Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts in Somali for three periods a week of 15 minutes each. It is hoped: to expand this service to a daily one of 30 minutes as soon as possible.
(c) The British Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts in Swahili for 15 minutes on four days a week and for 30 minutes on three days a week.
(d) Aden Radio broadcasts for five hours a day in Arabic and it is expected that the station will be able to relay the Arabic Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation for an addition of two hours a day from the beginning of May.
(e) Radio Somali at Hargeisa broadcasts in Somali for 13¼ hours a week.


As regards Egyptian-controlled stations, the "Voice of the Arabs" broadcasts for about 81 hours a day. This programme includes a daily 25 minute transmission entitled "Arab Gulf and South Programme" which is directed at the Persian Gulf and Aden and which once a week includes material for Somalia.
Cairo Radio also broadcasts for one hour a day in Swahili and 45 minutes a day in Somali.

Mr. Wall: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply, may I ask whether he feels that there is a case for the construction of a high-powered station in East Africa to counteract the pro-Egyptian propaganda, which is having a certain amount of effect both in the Arabian Peninsula and the Horn of Africa?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: We are considering various proposals for extending the facilities available, but I am afraid I am not in a position to make a statement today.

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps are being taken, in view of the continued hostile propaganda of Egypt in the "Voice of the Arabs" against this country and the West generally throughout the Middle East, to counteract it in British broadcasts.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Arabic Service of the British Broadcasting Corporation, which broadcasts in Arabic for 9½ hours a day on short and medium waves, gives an accurate and objective account of world events in its news services and presents the British and Western point of view in its talks and commentaries. In addition, the General Overseas Service in English, which broadcasts for nearly 24 hours a day, can also be heard on short and medium waves for considerable periods of the day in the Middle East. There are also broadcasts from Aden—in Arabic—and Hargeisa—in English—which can be heard in parts of the area.

Mr. Price: Are attempts made to answer the allegations which appear in the "Voice of the Arabs"?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes. The B.B.C. monitors a very large number of the broadcasts coming from the "Voice of


the Arabs", and these broadcasts are taken into account in the B.B.C.'s own services.

Mr. J. Johnson: Has our ambassador in Cairo been asked to see Colonel Nasser about all this stuff, and, if so, with what effect?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: We do not have an ambassador in Cairo.

Development

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take steps to consult with the States and companies involved, with a view to setting up a Middle Eastern Development Board at least partly financed from oil royalties.

The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): A good deal of discussion has been going on for some time about development proposals for the Middle East. The fact is that any development plan to be successful must come about through the co-operation and with the consent of the countries principally concerned. I see no sign of any such agreement as yet for a plan covering the Middle East as a whole.

Mr. Grimond: May we take it from that Answer, however, that this is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and that they are making every effort, in consultation with the countries concerned, to see that some such development board is set up, if agreement can be reached?

Mr. Lloyd: We think that the greater the extent to which development boards can be set up, and, on the whole, the more comprehensive their areas, the better. The difficulty is to get agreement with the countries concerned.

Mr. Bevan: Have not the Opposition made this proposal from this side of the House for some time past? Is not it the view of the Foreign Office that the initiative should come from the Arab States themselves? Would not it be much more desirable for the initiative to come from the West, since when Arab States take the initiative themselves, it is usually to bring about a unilateral change of some concession which leaves the situation for us rather worse than it was before? Would not it be better for us to have a comprehensive scheme, to which the Middle Eastern States would

have to react rather than react each time with a demand for the re-negotiation of a concession?

Mr. Lloyd: There is a good deal in what the right hon. Gentleman says. At the moment, the most helpful approach is the fact that the secretariat of the United Nations and the staff of the International Bank are studying the technical aspects of this problem, and I very much hope that something will come out of that study.

Mr. J. Hynd: Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether anything further has been done about the White Paper which was published in 1945 and which laid down a proposed agreement, submitted by the British and American Governments, for the setting up of an international oil authority?

Mr. Lloyd: I should like notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEST GERMANY (JUDGES AND PUBLIC PROSECUTORS)

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has considered the additional papers and documents containing extracts from the original proceedings, bills of indictment and personnel files, together with certain photostatic copies showing details of the crimes committed by Hitler's judges, who have been reappointed to office either as judges or public prosecutors in West Germany; whether he will ask the Bonn Government to include an answer to these charges and allegations in the investigations they are now conducting; and when he expects to receive the results of this investigation.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is Yes, Sir. As regards the remainder of his Question, I am making further inquiries.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, but if the Secretary of State has seen these photostatic copies of the original documents, proving that these men were former SS leaders and that they are now back in their jobs, he will know all this evidence is available and that it should not have taken the West German Government from last May until now to make the investigation. Can


the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us when he expects to get the result of this investigation, which has been proceeding since May of last year?

Mr. Lloyd: I think one has to draw a distinction between allegations—and these are mainly allegations, which come from the Communist authorities in Eastern Germany—and proven facts. I think the right people to investigate these are the German Government, with whom we have been in touch about them for some time.

Mr. Lewis: When does the Secretary of State expect a reply?

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Reeves—Question No. 4.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. In view of the fact that this matter has been going on for twelve months, I beg to give notice that as it is very unsatisfactory I shall raise it on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAUDI ARABIA

Mr. Philips Price: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the formation of a new Government in Saudi Arabia with the appointment of Prince Feisal to direct foreign policy, he will take steps to open discussions with that Government for the solution of outstanding differences with this country, such as the Buraimi oasis and other questions.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government would welcome the restoration of the traditional friendly relations between the two countries, and they have for some time been in communication with the Saudi Arabian Government with this end in view.

Mr. Price: Is not it a fact that the policy of the present Saudi Arabian Government is not less friendly to this country than when it was directed directly by the King?

Mr. Lloyd: We have no reason to believe that there has been any change.

Mr. Younger: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether the Buraimi question is in any way under negotiation? I seem to remember that

we were told that there were discussions at one time or that the Saudi Arabians were seeking discussions. Is this a matter of present discussion?

Mr. Lloyd: Our position is that problems like that of the Buraimi Oasis would be much better handled if we could restore diplomatic relations.

Oral Answers to Questions — PERSIAN GULF STATES (TREATIES)

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is satisfied with the treaties governing relations between Great Britain and the various States in the Persian Gulf and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's Question I would say is in general, Yes, Sir. The question of a statement does not therefore arise.

Mr. Williams: If my right hon. and learned Friend is only in general satisfied, what is he doing to remove the remaining dissatisfaction which, one deduces, is yet in his mind? Would not it be a good thing to conduct a review of all our treaty relationships with all of the States in the Middle East? Many of the treaties are well out of date.

Mr. Lloyd: That is exactly the kind of review which is being undertaken in certain cases, but I think it would be most unwise of me to particularise at this moment.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further discussions are taking place with foreign Governments over the future of Cyprus.

Mr. Donnelly: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement on the progress of his negotiations with Greece and Turkey regarding the future of Cyprus.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I cannot yet add anything to the Answer which I gave on 2nd April to the hon. Members for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) and for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. L. Jeger).

Mr. Williams: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the time has now arrived when this matter should be returned completely to the Colonial Office?

Mr. Lloyd: I thought it was common ground in all quarters of the House, even my hon. Friend's quarter, that there were certain foreign countries involved in this matter, Greece and Turkey. Therefore, it cannot altogether be regarded as a colonial problem.

Mr. Bevan: When are we likely to have a statement from the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the progress of the negotiations? With whom are they taking place at the moment, and in what venue?

Mr. Lloyd: I realise that in this matter the Government have received a great deal of tolerance and patience from both sides of the House, but there are certain factors, which are well known—I do not want to mention them today unless I have to—which do affect the timing of any statement. Therefore, I must ask the House still to be patient for a little time.

Mr. Bevan: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give no idea at all to the House as to when he will feel himself in a position to make a statement?

Mr. Lloyd: I think that certain statements have been made publicly which will refer to one of the matters which I have in mind. I would rather not add to them.

Mr. Donnelly: Is the Secretary of State aware that the information I have is that there have been no talks with Greece since the right hon. and learned Gentleman visited Athens, and that there have been no talks with the Turks since the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in Ankara? If this is true, does not it disclose a monstrous situation and is not it a fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues have been misleading the House?

Mr. Lloyd: What the hon. Gentleman said is not true. He knows as well as I do that shortly after I made my last statement to the House the Greek Government fell.

Mr. Bevan: In view of that juxtaposition, does the right hon. and learned

Gentleman propose to make a statement about the Soviet Government?
However, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that at least one contribution which could be made towards the pacification of the island and towards the prevention of a recurrence of violence would be the feeling there that the House of Commons was taking possession of the problem rather than neglecting it? Is not it therefore desirable to expedite a statement as much as possible?

Mr. Lloyd: In regard to the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I was not quite certain whether the wish was father to the thought. Perhaps I should say that the Greek Government fell on the issue of electoral reform.
I entirely agree that it is desirable that the statement should be made as soon as possible.

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals were put before the Greek and Turkish Governments in January in connection with the Cyprus problem; and in what way the proposals were unacceptable to the Governments concerned.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: As I explained in answer to earlier questions, I cannot add anything to my statement to the House on 18th February.

Mr. Robinson: If the Secretary of State is satisfied that these were reasonable proposals, why has he been so reluctant to reveal any details whatever about them? Is he aware that the Government have got themselves into the position of now being regarded as accepting a Turkish right of veto on any solution?

Mr. Lloyd: As I have pointed out, shortly after I made my statement the Greek Government fell, and certain constitutional processes have been taking place. It would be most unwise at this moment to launch any proposal which might have any chance of success.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: When the right hon. and learned Gentleman makes his forthcoming statement, will he tell us what Her Majesty's Government's proposals were?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think that when the forthcoming statement upon Cyprus


is made it will be right for the House to be told the various stages which have been gone through.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Do I take the Foreign Secretary's answer to mean that he will tell us what the proposals were in January? Is not it most desirable that they should be published as the Government in the end have to settle with the Cypriots and Parliament must ratify what they do?

Mr. Lloyd: What I think the right hon. Gentleman must do is to wait until the statement is made. If he then does not think it is adequate, he can criticise it.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRANCE (IMMIGRATION REGULATIONS)

Mr. Snow: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make representations to the French Government in the matter of a recent case, details of which have been sent to him by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tam-worth, so as to ensure as far as is practicable that the levying of summary fines for minor infringements of immigration regulations on young British subjects returning to the United Kingdom from French educational establishments, with the searching of handbags for currency to pay such fines, shall not take place without proper reference to the French educational establishments concerned with whom lies the primary responsibility, and shall be without hindrance to the return journeys of such young British subjects.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: My right hon. and learned Friend cannot undertake to do what the hon. Member requests. In the particular case to which the hon. Member refers the person concerned was not a minor under French law and was, therefore, responsible for her actions.

Mr. Snow: While one does not want to over-emphasise this sort of thing, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I have tried to get this matter rectified through the French Consular-General in London, without success; that this young woman's handbag was ransacked on the allegation that she was carrying contraband currency; and that she was otherwise badly treated in front of witnesses, and her journey impeded? Was not the

primary responsibility that of the French education authorities and have we not a duty to try to protect young persons travelling in Europe?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is not correct to say that the prime responsibility was that of the French education authorities. If the young lady was of age, the prime responsibility rested on her, but I agree that it would be reasonable for educational establishments in France to take precautions to see that their students are correctly informed about matters of this kind.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN COUNTRIES (SOVIET AGREEMENTS)

Colonel Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT relevant extracts from the international undertakings of the Soviet Union which pledged that country to respect the independence of European countries, at present under Soviet domination or occupied by the Soviet Union, including Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will, with permission, circulate extracts from the relevant Agreements in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Colonel Beamish: Is not it very important to contrast the crystal-clear legal and moral obligation of the Soviet Union in these matters with the recent very disheartening and cynical statement by Mr. Khrushchev in Hungary to the effect that the future of these countries was no business of the United Nations?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think that that may well be so.

Following is the information:

Estonia

Article 2 of the Peace Treaty between Russia and Estonia which was signed at Tartu on 2nd February, 1920, reads:
In accordance with the right of all nations to self-determination, even to complete separation from the State whence they have sprung (proclaimed by the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic), Russia unequivocally recognises the independence and self existence of the Estonian State, and voluntarily and forever renounces her claim to all sovereign rights which belonged to Russia in connexion with the Estonian people and territory by reason of the late state


régime, and also under international treaties, which shall for the future be null and void in the sense referred to above. No obligations with regard to Russia shall accrue to the Estonian territory and people owing to the fact that Estonia at one time belonged to Russia.

Article 1 of a Treaty of Non-aggression between the U.S.S.R. and Estonia signed in Mascow on 4th May, 1932, and subsequently renewed, reads inter alia as follows:
Both High Contracting Parties mutually guarantee the inviolability of the frontiers at present existing between them, as defined by the Peace Treaty signed on 2nd February, 1920, and bind themselves to abstain from any act of aggression one against the other, and from any acts of force directed against the integrity and inviolability of each other's territory"…

Latvia

Article 2 of the Peace Treaty between Latvia and Russia signed at Riga on 11th August, 1920, stated:
Russia recognises, without reservation, the independence, self-existence and sovereignty of the Latvian State, and voluntarily renounces forever all sovereign rights which belonged to Russia in regard to the Latvian nation and territory by virtue of the lawful constitutional order which existed in the past. No obligation whatever in regard to Russia arises for the Latvian nation and territory out of the fact that they formally belonged to Russia

The Soviet-Latvian Treaty of Non-aggression, signed at Riga on 5th February, 1932, stated:
Article 1. "The High Contracting Parties mutually undertake to abstain from any act of aggression against one another, and also from all acts of violence directed against the integrity and inviolability of their territory or against the political independence of the other High Contracting Party, independently of whether such aggression or similar action be taken separately or in conjunction with other Powers, with or without the declaration of war.
Article 2. "Each of the High Contracting Parties binds itself not to participate in any military or politcal treaties, conventions or agreements directed against the independence, territorial integrity or political security of the other party" …

Lithuania

The Peace Treaty between Russia and Lithuania signed in Moscow on 12th July, 1920, stated in Article 1:
Proceeding from the right, proclaimed by the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, of all nations to free self-determination up to their complete separation from the State into the composition of which they enter, Russia recognises without reservation the sovereign rights and independence of the Lithuanian State with all the juridical consequences arising from such recognition, and voluntarily and far all time abandons all the sovereign rights of Russia over the Lithuanian people and their territory.

A treaty of Neutrality and Non-aggression between the two countries signed in Moscow on 28th September, 1926, stated:
Article 2. "The U.S.S.R. and the Lithuanian Republic mutually undertake to respect in all circumstances the sovereignty and territorial integrity and inviolability of the other".

The Treaty was subsequently renewed

The Declaration on Liberated Europe

The Declaration on Liberated Europe, signed by the three Heads of State as part of the Yalta Agreement of 11th February. 1945, reads:
They jointly declare their mutual agreement to concert during the temporary period of instability in Liberated Europe the policies of their three Governments in assisting the peoples liberated from the domination of Nazi Germany and the peoples of the former Axis Satellite States of Europe to solve by democratic means their pressing political and economic problems." …
To foster the conditions in which the liberated peoples may exercise these rights, the three Governments will jointly assist the people in any European liberated State or former Axis Satellite State in Europe where, in their judgment, conditions require:

(a) to establish conditions of internal peace;
(b) to carry out emergency measures for the relief of distressed people;
(c) to form interim Governmental authorities broadly representative of all democratic elements in the population and pledged to the earliest possible establishment through free elections of Governments responsive to the will of the people;
(d) to facilitate where necessary the holding of such elections.

When, in the opinion of the three Governments, conditions in any European liberated State or any former Axis Satellite State in Europe make such action necessary, they will immediately consult together on the measures necessary to discharge the joint responsibilities set forth in this Declaration.
By this Declaration we reaffirm our faith in the principles of the Atlantic Charter, our pledge in the Declaration by the United Nations, and our determination to build in co-operation with other peace-loving nations world order under law, dedicated to peace, security, freedom and general well being of all mankind.

The Atlantic Charter

The Dedlaration of Principles issued on 14th August, 1941, known as the Atlantic Charter, and subsequently endorsed by the Joint Declaration by the United Nations on 1st January, 1942 (including the Soviet Government) stated,
inter alia:
First, their countries, seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other; Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes


of the peoples concerned; Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live, and they wish to see sovereign rights and self-government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;" …
Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.

United Nations Charter

Chapter I, Article 1 (2) reads:

[The Purposes of the United Nations are:]
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace.
Chapter 1, Article 2 (4), reads:
All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMED FORCES (OVERSEAS STATIONS)

Colonel Beamish: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in which foreign countries British Armed Forces are stationed; and if he will make a statement of Government policy on this matter.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: British Armed Forces are stationed in Germany and Libya with the agreement of the Governments concerned and in pursuance of Her Majesty's Government's international obligations.

Colonel Beamish: Is not the Soviet Union constantly asking for the liquidation of foreign military bases, and is not it clear from that reply that where British Armed Forces are stationed in foreign countries it is invariably at the request of the independent Governments of those countries—[HON. MEMBERS: "What about Suez and Cyprus?"]—whereas more than half a million Soviet troops are stationed in the countries of East and Central Europe against the will of the people?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think that that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT

Frozen Assets

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what recent consultation he has had with the United States Government regarding the unfreezing of Egyptian assets.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: We have had several discussions with the United States Government on this topic recently.

Mr. Wall: Can my right hon. and learned Friend assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will not agree to such action unless and until British subjects whose assets have been sequestrated have received compensation and British subjects now in gaol have been released?

Mr. Lloyd: I thought that my hon. Friend dealt with the policy of the United States Government in his Question. That has been stated to be that if an agreement were accepted to clear up the dispute between the United Arab Republic and the Suez Canal Company, the United States would consider removing its blocking order.

Discussions

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress that is being made regarding the discussions with the Egyptian Government pertaining to the nationalisation of the Suez Canal, compensation and matters connected with the recent war with Egypt.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Representatives of the shareholders of the Suez Canal Company have been holding talks with the Egyptian Government, with the assistance of representatives of the International Bank. These talks have not yet been concluded, and I cannot make a statement.
The Anglo-Egyptian financial talks in Rome about British property in Egypt have not yet been concluded. The present position is that the Egyptian Government are considering the position reached in the last round of discussions.

Mr. Lewis: I thank the Minister for that reply, which does not contain a lot of information. May we be told when he hopes to be able to give a reply to a similar Question which will give us


some information of the progress regarding the various matters mentioned in this Question?

Mr. Lloyd: As soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — ADEN-YEMEN BORDER (INCIDENTS)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the situation on the Aden-Yemen border, following the recent British note of protest to the Government of the Yemen.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: On numerous occasions in the last few months Yemeni forces have violated the Aden Protectorate frontier, have attacked our forts and members of the security forces, and have fired heavy machine-guns, mortars and artillery across the border. I have protested strongly to the Yemeni Government. These attacks have also been brought to the attention of the United Nations in two letters dated 6th March and 17th April addressed to the Secretary General for the information of the Security Council. Our forces have taken measures necessary to defend themselves when they have been attacked.

Mr. Henderson: Why cannot the Government propose the appointment of a United Nations commission to demarcate the Yemen-Aden frontier, and also the appointment of United Nations observers on the frontier to check possible border aggression? Is it not better to take action before trouble, rather than after it?

Mr. Lloyd: I have nothing to add today to the Answers I have given on the subject before, but I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that on 17th April we caused a statement on the latest state of affairs to be addressed to the Secretary General of the Security Council.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to accept a United Nations commission? Is not this an absolutely vital point?

Mr. Lloyd: Whether the time is ripe and whether the procedures of the United Nations are most appropriate for dealing with this matter are subjects which must

be considered. As I have said before, this is a matter which we have under consideration.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is not this a matter in which there has been firing between two members of the United Nations over a long period of time? Is it not now time that we took our responsibilities under the Charter seriously and laid the matter properly before the United Nations?

Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think that this is a matter which requires consideration. The point is, I believe, that the United Nations should be used as an instrument of reconciliation. The fact of the matter is that in certain places the frontier is not demarcated. There are certain clear treaty rights. For the moment, I must leave the position as I have stated it.

Mr. Henderson: Will the Foreign Secretary clear up this point? Do I understand him to say that the possibility of stationing United Nations observers on the frontier has not been ruled out by Her Majesty's Government?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly not, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Jerusalem (Internationalisation)

Major Legge-Bourke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he is taking in furtherance of the longstanding United Nations Resolution for the Internationalisation of Jerusalem, in view of the continuance of brutalities exercised by Zionist police in the Holy City against devout Jews.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: None, Sir. The views of Her Majesty's Government on the status of Jerusalem are well known.
If my hon. and gallant Friend is referring to a disturbance over the question of a municipal mixed bathing pool, I would suggest that mixed bathing in foreign countries is not a matter in which Her Majesty's Government would wish to get involved.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I would certainly not judge whether or not that was desirable? Will he bear in mind that the demonstration, which was a peaceful one carried out by orthodox Jews, has been very severely punished, so severely that two


members of the Zionist police are awaiting disciplinary action? Will not he agree that it is highly undesirable from the point of view of the preservation of the holy places as international that incidents of this sort should continue? Will he approach the Israeli Government to ascertain whether this sort of thing can be avoided?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not think it is really for Her Majesty's Government to intervene. From what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, it strikes me that the Israeli Government are already taking disciplinary action to ensure that events of this kind do not recur.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, while we all recognise that the control of the Israeli police is not, fortunately, one of Her Majesty's Government's responsibilities, most people would agree with him that the people of Israel do not regard the establishment of a mixed bathing pool in the open air in Jerusalem as brutality committed against devout Jews?

Food and Agriculture Organisation (Accra Conference)

Mrs. Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs who will represent the United Kingdom Government at the First Regional Conference of the Food and Agricultural Organisation of the United Nations at Accra from 28th April to 2nd May.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The United Kingdom Government will be represented at this meeting by Mr. W. A. Morris, of the Colonial Office.

Mrs. Butler: I thank the Minister for that information. Can he indicate whether the delegate will be putting forward any proposals for the elimination of malnutrition among children in East and Central Africa who are under United Kingdom administration?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am afraid that I cannot without notice, but I will look into the point.

Oral Answers to Questions — CENTRAL EUROPE (ARMS LIMITATION)

Mr. Healey: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what proposals he has made to Allied Governments for a

zone of limited armaments in Central Europe.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: We are exchanging views with our Allies on the subjects which are likely to be dealt with at a Summit Conference. This exchange of views must be confidential.

Mr. Healey: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Soviet Government have already published detailed proposals for arms limitation in Central Europe and certain Allied Governments have already tried to prejudice the decision of the possible Summit Conference against those proposals? Is not it highly desirable that if Her Majesty's Government have their own proposals in this field they should be published so that the maximum support of world opinion may be gained for them if they deserve it?

Mr. Lloyd: As to the Soviet Government publishing their proposals, they haw: not quite the same obligations to consult their Allies as we have. So far as we are concerned, I think the first step is to try to get the broadest possible agreement among our Allies before we publish our proposals.

Mr. Bevan: As that is an exceedingly desirable objective, is it not, therefore, obviously undesirable that any of our Allies should publish any comments hostile to those proposals while discussions are continuing? Is not there an obligation to secrecy, not to be hostile, as well as not to publish positive proposals?

Mr. Lloyd: I think I should be wiser to confine—[Interruption.]
I am sure that, in the course of answering the right hon. Gentleman, I may be allowed to say how extremely glad we are in all quarters of the House to see back with us my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill), who has just entered the Chamber.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I think I should be wiser to confine myself to the proposition that I think it is better to try to secure agreement confidentially and in secret before pronouncements are made.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Mr. Lewis: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the progress being made in connection with the talks now proceeding in Moscow on matters pertaining to the arrangements for a future Summit Conference.

Mr. Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what stage has been reached in the discussions between the British ambassador at Moscow and the Soviet Government relating to the Summit Conference.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: So far, Mr. Gromyko has had one talk with each of the three Western ambassadors. He is at present unwilling to see them together. We are discussing with the United States and French Governments how best to deal with this.

Mr. Lewis: While it may seem rather ridiculous on the part of the Soviet Government to adopt the attitude of seeing each one individually, can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what objections there really are to Her Majesty's Government agreeing to that step? If Press reports are true that the Soviet Government said that they will see the ambassadors of the three Western Powers together if they agree to the ambassadors of Czechoslovakia and Poland being in with them, cannot we agree to that suggestion?

Mr. Lloyd: That suggestion has not been put to us. I should have thought it was obvious that it was unsatisfactory, time-wasting and likely to lead to misunderstanding and confusion to see each of the three ambassadors separately.

Mr. Bevan: Did not Great Britain and the United States suggest to the Soviet Union that the preparatory talks should take place through normal diplomatic channels, and is not this a normal diplomatic channel? Is not it rather an abnormal diplomatic channel for three Governments to concert together beforehand and then meet the representative of the fourth Government? What is proposed is the normal diplomatic procedure. What objection has the right hon. and learned Gentleman to it? If it is the case that the Soviet Government wish to be accompanied in any subsequent discussion by ambassadors belonging to

other countries, what conceivable objection could we have to that procedure?

Mr. Lloyd: I am surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman endorse so firmly the position of the Soviet Government in this matter. The last Summit Conference took place between the Governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union and France, and I should have thought that a very reasonable way to start the preparations for the next Summit Conference, without prejudice as to its exact constitution, would be for those four States to meet together to discuss arrangements.

Mr. Bevan: What objection can there be to any hon. Member supporting a view which is put forward by the Soviet Union if he thinks that the Soviet Union is right? We are not dealing at the moment with the Summit Conference; we are dealing with preparatory talks. Is not it a fact that the Soviet Union invited the Western Powers to a Summit Conference? Is it not also a fact that we responded by saying that we thought that the Summit Conference should first be prepared in the normal diplomatic way? Is not this the normal diplomatic way? What conceivable objection can the right hon. and learned Gentleman have to it—unless he wants to have an advantage that the Soviet Union itself does not possess?

Mr. Lloyd: I was not objecting to the right hon. Gentleman's agreeing with the Soviet Union; I was only expressing my surprise. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I should have thought that if we really wanted to get a worth-while series of summit talks going as speedily as possible we ought to do it with the four Governments discussing these preparations together.

Mr. Lipton: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that if we progress at this rate, before the Summit Conference takes place we might find ourselves at war with Monaco? Seriously, will not he accept this proposition, rather than get bogged down with a lot of sticky diplomatic preliminaries? It would be much better for the Prime Minister to spend two or three days in Moscow with Mr. Khrushchev in order to clear the decks and so ensure that the Summit Conference is held within our lifetime.

Mr. Lloyd: I think that much the best way to avoid getting bogged down with diplomatic preliminaries is for this meeting to take place as quickly as possible on a four-Power basis.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Should any hon. Member be surprised when fellow-travellers agree with the Soviet Union?

Mr. Bcvan: Will the hon. and gallant Member he good enough to indicate to whom he is referring?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry that this matter has degenerated into a personal dispute. I think that the information which the House wants could be elicited without making injurious reflections upon other hon. Members. If the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) meant anything injurious by his reference to the right hon. Gentleman, he ought to withdraw it.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: I was not referring to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bevan: On a point of order. It is my duty, and the duty of all hon. Members, to defend the reputation of any hon. Member in this House, on whatever side he may sit. Would not it be the most honourable course for the hon. and gallant Member to indicate the person to whom he was referring?

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot spend more time on this.

Mr. Bevan: Further to that point of order. It is surely a highly offensive remark to state that any Member of this House is a fellow-traveller. With all respect, Sir, you yourself have said that it is an injurious remark. Cannot you bring the hyenas on the other side to order?

Mr. Speaker: I have frequently expressed the opinion that injurious epithets are often applied to a number of people—members of opposite parties, and so on—and it is only when they become particularised that I am called upon to interfere. The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford has said that he did not refer

to the right hon. Gentleman. We do not know whom he meant. We must take his remark as one of the general recriminations which, unfortunately, are inseparable from party warfare.

Mr. Beswick: Are we to take it that this is simply part of the usual Conservative tactic of impugning the patriotism of its opponents when it has a bad case?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. Hon. Members can form their own opinions.

Mr. Lewis: Further to that point of order. Did I understand you aright, Mr. Speaker, when you said that the remark of the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport) was an injurious one, and if made against the right hon. Gentleman should have been withdrawn? In view of the fact that only two hon. Members and one right hon. Member rose on this side of the House, may I assume that the injurious remark was made against my hon. Friend the Member for Brixton (Mr. Lipton) or myself? If that is the case, may I ask you to ask the hon. and gallant Member to withdraw his remark as far as I am concerned?

Mr. Speaker: There is no necessity for the hon. Member to identify himself as the object of the remark. I would ask the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) to ask Question No. 28, so that we can get on.

Mr. Lewis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I would point out that this House has a reputation, whereby Mr. Speaker protects all hon. Members on both sides of the House. A moment ago you said that a remark that was made against a right hon. Gentleman was injurious and should be withdrawn. The hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford made it only with regard to three possible Members who rose to their feet. If it should have been withdrawn against the right hon. Gentleman——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is arguing against my Ruling. There were a number of hon. Members in the House who cheered the remarks about the point at issue—the question whether the ambassadors should meet separately or together. The hon. Member need not make himself the target for these remarks. I protect hon. Members when they are personally


attacked, but there has been no attack in this case beyond the ordinary course of party warfare. We need not be too thin-skinned about it. Mr. Lewis. Question No. 28.

Mr. Lewis: I am not too thin—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—too thin-skinned. May I repeat that? As anyone can see, I am not too thin, neither am I too thin-skinned. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not worried about what an hon. Member or a right hon. Member may or may not say. What I am worried about is that right hon. Gentlemen would appear to get special treatment with regard to the withdrawal of a remark, as against ordinary hon. Members. It is from that point of view that I feel the hon. and gallant Member ought to withdraw the remark.

Mr. Speaker: We must get on. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) took the remark as referring to himself. That is why, when the subject was still possibly identifiable, I intervened. But the hon. and gallant Member has made it quite clear that he was not referring to the right hon. Gentleman.

Hon. Members: Who was it?

Mr. Speaker: I have no idea to whom he was referring. I must ask the hon. Member to ask Question No. 28, or I shall call the next Question.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will insist, in the preparatory negotiations, that the agenda of the Summit Conference must be considered with the obligations of the Charter, notably Article 2, paragraph 7, forbidding interference in the internal affairs of members of the United Nations, and Article 103, which declares that treaty obligations which conflict with those of the Charter are not binding on members of the United Nations.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: In these preparatory negotiations we shall certainly have regard to the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

Mr. Zilliacus: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply. Will he make it clear that this means that any attempt at interfering in the internal affairs of certain Eastern States under the Yalta Agreement would

be contrary to Articles 2 and 103 of the Charter?

Mr. Lloyd: I have nothing to add to my original Answer, except to record my pleasure at the support of the hon. Gentleman for Article 2, paragraph 7 of the Charter.

Oral Answers to Questions — N.A.T.O. (FOREIGN MINISTERS' CONFERENCE)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will urge at the Copenhagen Foreign Ministers' Conference that, in order to make agreement at the summit talks possible, the Western Powers should now drop their demand that United Germany must be free to enter the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, and instead signify their agreement to some plan for unifying Germany within an all-European treaty and the United Nations, but outside the rival alliances, with prohibition of nuclear weapons in, and withdrawal of foreign forces from, the territories of Germany, Poland and Hungary, accompanied by appropriate forms of supervision.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.

Mr. Zilliacus: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reply mean that the Government cling to their proposal that a united Germany should be free to enter N.A.T.O.? Does not the Foreign Secretary recognise that, by clinging to that policy they will make themselves responsible for wrecking the summit talks before they have started?

Mr. Lloyd: What my Answer means is that Her Majesty's Government do not believe in putting forward proposals which they believe would not add to the security of Europe.

Mr. Bevan: Would not it be desirable, also, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should not commit himself to statements that might inhibit a settlement in Europe?

Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that I have committed myself to any statement which might inhibit a settlement.

Mr. Bevan: Is not it a fact that if a statement is made that Western Germany, or a united Germany, must be free


to enter into any foreign alliances, this in itself would be an inhibition on any policy of disengagement, including Germany, in Europe? Is not it undesirable to lay that down beforehand as a pre-condition of the conference?

Mr. Lloyd: If the right hon. Gentleman will study the Question and my Answer, he will see that I have not done so. There is no change in Her Majesty's Government's policy on this matter.

Mr. D. Price: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that if he took up any other position he would, in fact, be committing this country to going against Article 103 of the United Nations Charter regarding interfering with the freedom of a sovereign Government to decide its own affairs?

Mr. Lloyd: indicated assent.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will, at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Conference of Foreign Ministers, oppose General Norstad's demand that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's ground forces be raised from 15 to 30 divisions and that Western Germany should be granted nuclear weapons.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I do not understand the first part of the hon. Gentleman's Question. General Norstad's estimate of his requirements for ground forces has not been increased lately.
In answer to the second part of the Question I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. and gallant Friend, the Minister of State on 21st April.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that General Norstad has publicly stated that N.A.T.O. ground forces should be raised to 30 divisions from the existing 15? Will he make it clear that, on grounds of expense, if for no other reason, the Government will not accept that? Furthermore, will not the granting of nuclear weapons to Germany now prejudice summit talks and make negotiation difficult?

Mr. Lloyd: There has been no change in General Norstad's requirements. Regarding the question of nuclear weapons for Germany, I advise the hon.

Member to study carefully the Answer given by my right hon. and gallant Friend.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

"Training for Skill" (Circular)

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he has taken or will take to convey copies of "Training for Skill" to schools, technical colleges and industry.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): Copies of the Report "Training for Skill" have been sent to representative organisations of employers and trade unions to whom, of course, the recommendations in the Report are primarily addressed. I understand that my right hon. Friends the Minister of Education and the Secretary of State for Scotland have not felt it necessary to circulate copies of the Report to schools and technical colleges in view of the wide publicity which it has received in the educational Press.

Mr. Moss: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, which is very satisfactory. Will he ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Education to stress the importance of this Report in his circulars to local education authorities?

Mr. Wood: I will certainly ask my right hon. Friend to consider that, although I think the matter has been given considerable publicity already among schools and technical colleges.

Apprentices

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Labour (1) what steps he is taking or will take to obtain adequate statistics from industry on apprenticeship intake;
(2) what steps he is taking or will take to collect information from industry about wastage rates.

Mr. Wood: The view of the subcommittee of the National Joint Advisory Council on the recruitment and training of young workers in industry, with which I concur, was that the collection of statistics about apprentice occupations in any industry was desirable and could be most readily done by that industry itself.


The sub-committee further suggested that one of the functions of the National Apprenticeship Council, the establishment of which was recommended in its Report, should be to assist industries in formulating the necessary statistical inquiries.

Sunderland

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour how many people are registered as unemployed in Sunderland; and how this figure compares with 12 months ago.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): The number was 3,045 at 17th March, 1958, compared with 2,521 at 11th March, 1957.

Pottery Industry (Survey)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour when he expects to publish the official survey of the pottery industry; and whether he will now make a statement on the main recommendations arising from the survey.

Mr. Wood: I understand that the Inspectors of Factories who made the survey will present their Report in the near future. Meanwhile, I have nothing to add to the Answer given to the hon. Member on 20th November last.

Dr. Stross: In view of the great value which we think that this Report will have, may we have an assurance that it will be printed as comprehensively as possible and give as much of the findings as is possible?

Mr. Wood: This is a matter which has to be decided by the Industrial Health Advisory Committee. I am sure that the Committee will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Halifax (Industrial Health Survey)

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now considered the recommendations of the Industrial Health Survey in Halifax; and what action he proposes to take in order that increased industrial medical and nursing services will be made available.

Mr. Wood: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East

(Mr. Blenkinsop) on 2nd April. An approach is now being made to occupiers of Halifax factories employing 250 or more workpeople with a view to interesting them in the advtantages of providing or extending medical and nursing services.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: In view of the fact that the problems facing smaller factories are very largely physical, may I ask my hon. Friend not to forget to give any assistance that might be possible for them, especially financial assistance?

Mr. Wood: There are certainly other recommendations about smaller factories. We shall certainly consider them, especially in view of what my hon. Friend has said.

Building Workers, Stoke-on-Trent

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement on employment of building trade workers in Stoke-on-Trent, giving the numbers unemployed at the latest available date, and those for the two previous years.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Unemployment in building is virtually unchanged in Stoke-on-Trent from last year. On 17th March, 1958, there were 358 unemployed workers whose last employment was in the building industry, compared with 353 in March, 1957, and 143 in March, 1956.

Dr. Stross: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the picture is looked at in reverse one finds that the number of men employed is about half the number that was employed two years ago? In view of the fact that so little building is now possible in the area, will the right hon. Gentleman use his influence to see whether assistance can be given to solve the problem?

Mr. Macleod: In this area at least, the unemployment figures have not increased over the last year, whereas they have substantially increased in the rest of the country. I will look into what the hon. Member has said. He has put some of his thoughts in an Adjournment debate in this House. As he knows, the local council has a rather rigid attitude on the question of a differential rent scheme, which affects the position in Stoke-on-Trent.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

Railways (Working Conditions)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 9th May, I shall call attention to working conditions on the railways, and move a Resolution in very similar terms to that which has been on the Order Paper in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends for a number of weeks.

Commonwealth (Constitutional Development)

Mr. W. Yates: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 9th May. I shall call attention to constitutional development within the Commonwealth and to the desirability or not of a Commonwealth Cabinet Secretariat, Ministry of Defence, and other organisations, and move Resolution.

Tanganyika (United Nations Report)

Miss Vickers: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 9th May, I shall call attention

to the United Nations Report on Tanganyika, and move a Resolution.

BILL PRESENTED

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (INDUSTRIAL FINANCE)

Bill to enable the Treasury to give assistance under section four of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, for reducing unemployment in localities suffering from a high rate of unemployment, presented by Sir David Eccles; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Iain Macleod, and Mr. Erroll; read the First time; to be read a Second time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 103.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question put:—
That the Proceedings on the Slaughterhouses Bill be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 241.

Division No. 87.]
AYES
[3.33 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bryan, P.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Errington, Sir Eric


Alport, C. J. M.
Burden, F. F. A.
Erroll, F. J.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Butler, Rt. Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Finlay, Graeme


Armstrong, C. W.
Campbell, Sir David
Fisher, Nigel


Ashton, H.
Carr, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Cary, Sir Robert
Fort, R.


Atkins, H. E.
Channon, Sir Henry
Foster, John


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fraser, Hon, John (Stone)


Baldwin, A. E.
Churchill, Rt. Hon, Sir Winston
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)


Balniel, Lord
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Freeth, Denzil


Barlow, Sir John
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Barter, John
Cooke, Robert
Gammans, Lady


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cooper, A. E.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Cooper-Key, E. M.
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Gibson-Watt, D.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Glover, D.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Godber, J. B.


Bavins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Goodhart, Philip


Bidgood, J. C.
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Gough, C. F. H.




Gower, H. R.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Cunningham, Knox
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bingham, R. M.
Currie, G. B. H.
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Dance, J. C. G.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Bishop, F. P.
Davidson, Viscountess
Green, A.


Black, C. W.
Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)
Grimond, J.


Body, R. F.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bonham-Carter, Capt. M. R.
Deedes, W. F.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Gurden, Harold


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Drayson, G. B.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Boyle, Sir Edward
du Cann, E. D. L.
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Braine, B. R.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt-Col. W. H.
Duncan, Sir James
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Duthie, W. S.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macelesf'd)


Brooman-White, R. C.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)




Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Hay, John
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Robertson, Sir David


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Robson Brown, Sir William


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
McAdden, S. J.
Roper, Sir Harold


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Russell, R. S.


Hesketh, R. F.
McKibbin, Alan
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Sharples, R. C.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Simon. J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Hirst, Geoffrey
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Speir, R. M.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Holt, A. F.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Hope, Lord John
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hornby, R. P.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Horobin, Sir Ian
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Marshall, Douglas
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Mathew, R.
Storey, S.


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Howard, John (Test)
Mawby, R. L.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hurd, A. R.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Summer, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Moore, Sir Thomas
Teeling, W.


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Temple, John M.


Hyde, Montgomery
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nicholls, Harmar
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey(Hall Green)
Oakshott, H. D.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Joseph, Sir Keith
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vane, W. M. F.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Keegan, D.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wade, D. W.


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Osborne, C.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Kershaw, J. A.
Page, R. G.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Kimball, M.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Kirk, P. M.
Peel, W. J.
Wall, Patrick


Lagden, G. W.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Lambton, Viscount
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.




Langford-Holt, J. A.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Webbe, Sir H.


Leather, E. H. C.
Pitman, I. J.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Leavey, J. A.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Leburn, W. G.
Powell, J. Enoch
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Ramsden, J. E.
Wood, Hon. R.


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Rawlinson, Peter
Woollam, John Victor


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Redmayne, M.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G.(Sutton Coldfield)
Remnant, Hon. P.



Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Renton, D. L. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Mr. Legh and Mr. Hughes-Young.


Longden, Gilbert
Rippon, A. G. F.





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)


Albu, A. H.
Bowles, F. G.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boyd, T. C.
Cove, W. G.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brockway, A. F.
Cronin, J. D.


Anderson, Frank
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Burke, W. A.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Baird, J.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Balfour, A.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Callaghan, L. J.
Deer, G.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Carmichael, J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Benson, Sir George
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Delargy, H. J.


Beswick, Frank
Champion, A. J.
Diamond, John


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Chapman, W. D.
Donnelly, D. L.


Blackburn, F.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Dye, S.


Boardman, H.
Clunie, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Coldrick, W.
Edelman, M.







Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lindgren, G. S.
Reeves, J.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lipton, Marcus
Reid, William


Edwards W. J. (Stepney)
Logan, D. G.
Rhodes, H.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fernyhough, E.
McCann, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Finch, H. J.
MacColl, J. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
MacDermot, Niall



Foot, D. M.

Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Forman, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.
Ross, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McGovern, J.
Royle, C.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Short, E. W.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McLeavy, Frank
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Grey, C. F.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mahon, Simon
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Snow, J. W.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Sorensen, R. W.


Hale, Leslie
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sparks, J, A.


Hamilton, W. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Steele, T.


Hannan, W.
Mason, Roy
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mayhew, C. P.
Stonehouse, John


Hastings, S.
Mellish, R. J.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Hayman, F. H.
Messer, Sir F.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Healey, Denis
Mikardo, Ian
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mitchison, G. R.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Monslow, W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moody, A. S.
Swingler, S. T.


Holman, P.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Holmes, Horace
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Houghton, Douglas
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Moss, R.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Moyle, A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hoy, J. H.
Mulley, F. W.
Thornton, E.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Timmons, J.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Tomney, F.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hunter, A. E.
Oliver, G. H.
Usborne, H. C.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oram, A. E.
Viant, S. P.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Orbach, M.
Watkins, T. E.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oswald, T.
Weitzman, D.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Padley, W. E.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paget, R. T.
West, D. G.


Janner, B.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne valley)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Palmer, A. M. F.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Jeger, Mrs.Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pargiter, G. A.
Willey, Frederick


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Parker, J,
Williams, David (Neath)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Paton, John
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pearson, A.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Peart, T. F.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pentland, N.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Kenyon, C.
Popplewell, E.
Winterbottom, Richard


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Prentice, R. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


King, Dr. H. M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Woof, R. E.


Lawson, G. M.
Probert, A. R.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Ledger, R. J.
Proctor, W. T.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pryde, D. J.
Zilliacus, K.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pursey, Cmdr. R.



Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rankin, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lewis, Arthur
Redhead, E. C.
Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Simmons.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [15th April]

Resolutions reported.

[For particulars of Resolutions, see OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1958: Vol. 586, c. 74–87.]

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolutions, put forthwith on each Resolution,

pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and means Motions and Resolutions).

First to Thirteenth Resolutions agreed to.

Fourteenth Resolution—Profits tax (alteration of rate and basis of charge)—read a Second time.

Question put, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution:—

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 242.

Division No. 88.]
AYES
[3.48 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Crowder, Petre (Ruisllp—Northwood)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Cunningham-Knox
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Alport, C. J. M.
Currie, G. B. H.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Dance, J. C. G.
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Davidson, Viscountess
Hesketh, R. F.


Armstrong, C. W.
Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Ashton, H.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Deedes, W. F.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Atkins, H. E.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Baldoch, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hirst, Geoffrey


Baldwin, A. E.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hobson, John(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)


Balniel, Lord
Drayson, G. B.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Barber, Anthony
du Cann, E. D. L.
Holt, A. F.


Barlow, Sir John
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hope, Lord John


Barter, John
Duncan, Sir James
Hornby, R. P.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Duthie, W. S.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Horobin, Sir Ian


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Errington, Sir Eric
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Erroll, F. J.
Howard, John (Test)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Bidgood, J. C.
Finlay, Graeme
Hurd, A. R.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Fisher, Nigel
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)


Bingham, R. M.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Fort, R.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)


Bishop, F. P.
Foster, John
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry


Black, C. W.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Iremonger, T. L.


Body, R. F.
Fraser, Sir Ian(M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Bonham-Carter, Capt. M. R.
Freeth, Denzil
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Gammans, Lady
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Gibson-Watt, D.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Glover, D.
Joseph, Sir Keith


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Godber, J. B.
Kaberry, D.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Goodhart, Philip
Keegan, D.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Gough, C. F. H.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.


Bryan, P.
Gower, H. R.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Kershaw, J. A.


Burden, F. F. A.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Kimball, M.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Kirk, P. M.


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Green, A.
Lagden, G. W.


Campbell, Sir David
Grimond, J.
Lambton, Viscount


Carr, Robert
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Cary, Sir Robert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Channon, Sir Henry
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Leather, E. H. C.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gurden, Harold
Leavey, J. A.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Leburn, W. G.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Cooke, Robert
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)


Cooper, A. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Harvey, Sir Arthur (Macolesf'd)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G.(Sutton Coldfield)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Longden, Gilbert


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hay, John
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)




Lucas, P. B.(Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian(Hendon, N.)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Osborne, C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


McAdden, S. J.
Page, R. G.
Storey, S.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Peel, W. J.
Studholme, Sir Henry


McKibbin, Alan
Peyton, J. W. W.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Teeling, W.


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Pitman, I. J.
Temple, John M.


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Powell, J. Enoch
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


MacLeod, John (Ross and Cromarty)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Macmillan, Rt.Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Rawlinson, Peter
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Maddan, Martin
Redmayne, M.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)
Remnant, Hon. P.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Marlowe, A. A. H.
Renton, D. L. M.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Ridsdale, J. E.
Vane, W. M. F.


Marshall, Douglas
Rippon, A, G. F.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.



Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)



Mathew, R.
Robertson, Sir David
Vickers, Miss Joan


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Wade, D. W.


Mawby, R. L.
Robson Brown, Sir William
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Roper, Sir Harold
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek


Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Russell, R. S.
Wall, Patrick


Moore, Sir Thomas
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Sharpies, R. C.
Webbe, Sir H.


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Shepherd, William
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Nairn, D. L. S.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Nicholls, Harmar
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Speir, R. M.
Wood, Hon. R.


Nugent, G. R. H.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Woollam, John Victor


Oakshott, H. D.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard



Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Stevens, Geoffrey
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Mr. Legh and Mr. Hughes-Young.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamilton, W. W.


Albu, A. H.
Cove, W. G.
Hannan, W.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Cronin, J. D.
Hastings, S.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hayman, F. H.


Anderson, Frank
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Healey, Denis


Awbery, S. S.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Herbison, Miss M.


Baird, J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hewitson, Capt, M.


Balfour, A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Holman, P.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Deer, G.
Holmes, Horace


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Houghton, Douglas


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Delargy, H. J.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Benson, Sir George
Diamond, John
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Beswick, Frank
Dodds, N. N.
Hoy, J. H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Donnelly, D. L.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Blackburn, F.
Dye, S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Boardman, H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Edelman, M.
Hunter, A. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bowles, F. G.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Boyd, T. C.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Brockway, A. F.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fernyhough, E.
Janner, B.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Finch, H. J.
Jeger, George (Goole)


Burke, W. A.
Fletcher, Eric
Jeger, Mrs.Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Foot, D. M.
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Forman, J. C.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Callaghan, L. J.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Carmichael, J.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Grenfeil, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Champion, A. J.
Grey, C. F.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Chapman, W. D.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Kenyon, C.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Clunie, J.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
King, Dr H. M.


Coldrick, W.
Hale, Leslie
Lawson, G. M.


Collins, V.J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Ledger, R. J.







Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Orbach, M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Oswald, T.
Stonehouse, John


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Padley, W. E.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Lewis, Arthur
Paget, R. T.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Lindgren, G. S.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Lipton, Marcus
Palmer, A. M. F.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Logan, D. G.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pargiter, G. A.
Swingler, S. T.


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Parker, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


McCann, J.
Parkin, B. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


MacColl, J. E.
Paton, John
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


MacDermot, Niall
Peart, T. F.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


McGhee, H. G.
Pentland, N.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


McGovern, J.
Prentice, R. E.
Thornton, E.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Timmons, J.


McLeavy, Frank
Price, Phillips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Tomney, F.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Probert, A. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Proctor, W. T.
Usborne, H. C.


Mahon, Simon
Pryde, D. J.
Viant, S. P.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.



Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Rankin, John
Watkins, T. E.


Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Redhead, E. C.
Weitzman, D.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Reeves, J.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Reid, William
West, D. G.


Mason, Roy
Rhodes, H.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mayhew, C. P.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mellish, R. J.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Messer, Sir F.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Willey, Frederick


Mikardo, Ian
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Mitchison, G. R.
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Monslow, W.
Ross, William
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Moody, A. S.
Royle, C.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Short, E. W.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Mort, D. L.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Winterbottom, Richard


Moss, R.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Moyle, A.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Woof, R. E.


Mulley, F. W.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Snow, J. W.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Sorensen, R. W.
Zilliacus, K.


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank



Oliver, G. H.
Sparks, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Oram, A. E.
Steele, T.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Pearson.

Fifteenth to Nineteenth Resolutions agreed to.

Orders of the Day — FINANCE [EXCHEQUER ADVANCES]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to Finance, it is expedient to authorise such increases in the sums which, under section forty-two of the Finance Act, 1956, are authorised or required to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing, or paid into the Exchequer, as may be attributable to any provision of the said Act of the present Session continuing the power to make advances under that section and increasing to one thousand and seventy million pounds the aggregate amount of the advances that may be made thereunder.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — WAYS AND MEANS [21st April]

Resolution reported,

AMENDMENT OF THE LAW

That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public

revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance.

Resolution read a Second time.

Question, That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution and upon the other Resolutions reported from the Committee of Ways and Means and the Resolution reported from the Committee on Finance [Exchequer Advances] and agreed to this day, by The Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Maudling, and Mr. Simon.

FINANCE

Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with Finance, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed. [Bill 104.]

Orders of the Day — SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(ISOLATION OF SLAUGHTERHALLS FROM DWELLINGS.)

(1) Where in the case of an application for the grant or renewal of a slaughterhouse licence in respect of any premises received by a local authority after the date of the passing of this Act, being an application—



(a) for the grant of a new slaughterhouse licence; or


5
(b) in respect of premises in respect of which a new slaughterhouse licence has been granted since the said date; or



(c) in respect of premises in the case of which a holder of a slaughterhouse licence in respect of those premises has been convicted of an offence by virtue of subsection (2) of this section,


10
it appears to the authority that the proposed slaughterhall forms part of a building another part of which, being a part within the curtilage of those premises, is, or is proposed to be, used or adapted for use as a dwelling, then, subject to subsection (2) of section five of this Act, the authority shall refuse the application forthwith unless they are satisfied that, if the licence is granted or renewed, no part of that building within the curtilage of those premises will be used as a dwelling at any time while the licence is in force.


15


20
(2) Where after the date of the passing of this Act a slaughterhouse licence is in force in respect of any premises, then, if any person causes or permits to be used as a dwelling any part of a building which contains a slaughterhall, being a part within the curtilage of those premises, he shall be guilty of an offence under the principal Act:


25
Provided that this subsection shall not apply if that part has been appropriated as a dwelling continuously since before the date aforesaid and no application to which the foregoing subsection applies has been made in respect of those premises since that date.



(3) If a person convicted of an offence by virtue of the last foregoing subsection is the holder of a slaughterhouse licence in respect of the premises in question, the court may, addition to any other punishment, cancel the licence.


30
(4) It shall be the duty of every local authority to enforce and execute in their district the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, and sections one hundred and eighteen to one hundred and twenty of the principal Act (which relate to appeals) shall apply for the purposes of this section as if this section were contained in that Act.


35
(5) In this section the expression "slaughterhall" means that part of a slaughterhouse in which the actual slaughtering of any animal or the dressing of carcases takes place.—[Mr. Hare.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.1 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Hare): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Frederick Willey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will appreciate that the Bill falls naturally into three parts. One part deals with the Slaughter of Animals Act and is merely declaratory. The second part deals with safety, health and welfare. You will realise, Mr. Speaker, that the Clause was not before the Standing Committee until the end of its proceedings when there was, it was agreed, not an opportunity to put down Amendments and discuss it. The other part of the Bill is the part to which we object, and you will appreciate from the Notice Paper, Mr. Speaker, that it has been almost entirely rewritten. In these circumstances, I rise to ask whether there

is any opportunity of having a second Second Reading debate.

Mr. Speaker: I have never heard of such a proposal, and I should be loath to give an assent which would create such a precedent for the future.

Mr. Hare: I am very glad, despite what the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has said, that this Clause, which opens our proceedings on the Report stage, goes a long way to meet the points which were raised in Standing Committee by the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and the hon. Gentleman. I have read the proceedings of the Standing Committee, and I have been anxious to help meet the requirements put forward as far as I could reasonably do so.
We were particularly asked to ensure that where new slaughterhouses are built the slaughterhall should not be connected to a dwelling. I think that in the case of new slaughterhouses that is right.


Local authorities would, of course, under their planning powers be able to deal with this matter, but I accept that what I am proposing gives an absolute guarantee that local authorities will do what they are able to do. It is for that reason that I put forward the new Clause.
The effect of the Clause is that in a new slaughterhouse the slaughterhall must not be attached to a dwelling. Hon. Members also argued in the earlier stages that this principle should be applied either immediately or in the near future to existing slaughterhouses. I cannot see my way to legislate in that respect. I do not consider that we could reasonably apply this provision generally to existing slaughterhouses which are otherwise satisfactory.
Having said that, I do not think that this necessarily means that no improvement will take place. First, I believe that many of the slaughterhouses which hon. Members have in mind as being unsatisfactory are likely to fail, for various reasons, to come up to the standards of the new regulations and, therefore, will cease to be used as slaughterhouses. Others may require extensions beyond their present premises to bring them up to standard, and, there again, the planning authority will have power to ensure that the slaughterhalls are not attached to dwelling-houses.
However, I think we can go a little further than merely confining the Clause to new slaughterhouses. We are suggesting that where the slaughterhouse ceases to be used for a time and is then reopened with a new licence the ban which we are proposing should apply. It would also do so if the dwelling ceased for a time to be used. In other cases our conclusion is that it would be unreasonable to use the Bill to enforce a big change in the use of other slaughterhouses which are for other reasons entirely satisfactory.
I hope that the House will accept this proposal as being reasonable and as going a long way to meet what hon. Gentlemen opposite had in mind, and that they will think fit not to press their Amendments to apply this procedure immediately to all slaughterhouses.

Mr. Willey: We welcome the Minister to our debate. We were sorry that he could not take part in our discussions in the Standing Committee, but we are very

glad that his appearance has meant that the Government have, at any rate, gone so far to meet us on this very important matter.
There was a very exhaustive discussion about this in Standing Committee. It is really very surprising that in this day and age it should take the greatest of pressure from the Opposition to get even such a concession as this. What we asked for was that slaughterhouses should not be adjoining and attached to domestic dwelling-houses. I should have thought—I realise that we shall disappoint the right hon. Gentleman in this—that we had reached a stage at which we ought properly to insist that no slaughterhouses should be attached to dwelling-houses in any circumstances at all. For that reason, while we welcome the new Clause, we are disappointed that it has not gone as far as we expected. For that reason, we have tabled our Amendments. I will not pursue the matter any further now, because we shall deal with it when we reach the Amendments.
I have one or two points to make about the Clause. The right hon. Gentleman will realise, and the Parliamentary Secretary will recall, that the argument in Committee was about planning powers. We consulted the authorities to ascertain what the position about planning powers was, and we were informed—I think this was largely the Parliamentary Secretary's case—that this could be done in respect of future slaughterhouses through planning powers. Therefore, while I welcome the new Clause, I should like the Government to say something about that aspect of the matter, because I think that the Parliamentary Secretary would concede that he reached the point where he was opposed to us only on the matter of planning powers
I concede at once that if we can persuade the Minister to accept our Amendments the point about planning powers will not be valid, because I think powers are needed under the present Bill if we are to deal with existing slaughterhouses.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): Just in relation to new slaughterhouses?

Mr. Willey: Yes. I am not using this in an unfriendly way at all, but this was the point that was made, and I think


that both the hon. Gentleman and the Minister will agree that we are entitled to some explanation. Otherwise, there might be a suggestion that we are deliberately creating an overlap of powers. Let me make our position quite clear. We welcome this approach and think that it should be in the Bill, but as, towards the end of our discussions in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary very largely rested on planning powers, we should have some assurance that this will not ca use any inconvenience.
Having said that, I will reserve our views until we reach the Amendments, save for this one point. The Minister is aware that we are dealing here not with slaughterhouses but with slaughter-halls. I appreciate that there might be technical difficulties relating to slaughterhouses. There may be exceptions—large abattoirs where a dwelling may be part of the premises. I recognise that difficulty, but if that is the reason for our dealing with slaughterhalls rather than slaughterhouses, surely it would have been better to have made an exception of such premises instead of legislating only for slaughterhalls.
We have not put down an Amendment, because it would have been extraordinarily difficult to draft, and we do not want to discourage the Government from doing some good. This is a rather disappointing approach. The Government have conceded our case about future licences, but have taken a limited approach by confining their attention to slaughterhalls. I think that the House will wish to be satisfied that it is impossible to go further and to legislate against slaughterhouses, as such, being attached to or part of dwelling-houses.

Dr. Barnett Stross: When we discussed this in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary at first felt that he could not give way at all. I need not trouble the House with his reasons, because almost everyone now present heard them then. None the less, we must protest very strongly at the Minister now offering us such little comfort as is contained in this new Clause. We may not have another opportunity to do anything for many years to come. A principle is involved in this new Clause, just as there is an essential and vital principle in the Bill as a whole.
We had long arguments about this, because members of the Committee wanted to improve the facilities for the country as a whole, and did their best to put their point of view to the Parliamentary Secretary. Here, we are asked to face the fact that the Minister feels that there are slaughterhalls which, but for the fact that there is living accommodation attached to them, are satisfactory in every way, and he says that if they are not satisfactory we need not worry, because the new regulations will be such that they will have to close.
4.15 p.m.
If that be the case, could he not have brought the problem before us in another way? We fear that the regulations are not as tight as all that. We do not think that they are comprehensive or advanced enough to provide what we have in mind, namely, a step towards a method of slaughtering that will bring us in line with the most advanced countries in the world. His explanation in defending this new Clause does not satisfy us very much more than did the Parliamentary Secretary's at an earlier stage.
Whether because of vision or of obnoxious smells, we feel that to have these slaughterhalls where people are living has nothing to commend it. In Committee, we spoke about the vermin that are attracted to these places, and there was a considerable discussion as to whether the rat or the bluebottle was the worst. My hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Mr. Hastings) took me to task quite strenuously because I thought that the rat was worse and more difficult to exterminate than the bluebottle. However that may be, it is obnoxious to us even to think about it, let alone to have to live in such circumstances. The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) described the very worst type of these slaughterhalls, or slaughterhouses, as "holes in the wall", and I hope that he will give us the benefit of his views on the subject today.
The Minister has not gone far enough to please us, and we think it is a great mistake. Present British slaughtering and meat inspection practice is by no means as good as we wish it to be, and we do not think that either the Bill or the new Clause promises us a very much better prospect.

Mr. Sidney Dye: The new Clause is limited in its scope, and will not apply to every slaughterhouse. After much argument, the Minister has conceded that all new slaughterhouses shall be built separate from ordinary dwelling-houses. There are several reasons for that—noise, smell, and attraction to flies and vermin. In addition, many of us feel that children should not be brought up in premises overlooking a slaughterhouse. Indeed, that is one of our strongest reasons for advocating this step. We have found in the past that these small slaughterhouses built on to or adjoining living accommodation have not been in the best interests of the children living in the houses.
The new Clause means that we shall, in future, have two types of slaughterhouses: those built separate from all residential accommodation—as they should be—and those others, on which the owners will spend money so as to maintain them in good condition, and such buildings will remain in existence for many years. The new Clause should have provided only a limited period of life for those buildings allowed to remain at present, and the owners informed, so as to avoid our having two distinct standards, one for the new, and one for the old type of building.
That is what the Clause perpetuates. It is a weakness on the part of the Government, this halting, hesitating Government, in dealing with these matters. They could have acted in a clear and straight-forward manner, but they need a good deal of persuading to take any action. In this, they have gone only half way, and that is their weakness and their failure.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I receive this Clause with somewhat mixed feelings. I am grateful to the Minister for having gone some way to meet the points which were raised in Committee with so much feeling. On the other hand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) said, we fear that even now some horrible places may be allowed to be used for a number of years. I hope that it will be possible to strengthen the Clause along the lines we are now suggesting. Can the Minister tell us how many of these bad slaughterhouses there are? His

Department must have collected an enormous amount of information, and it should be easy to ascertain that fact.
Reference has been made to planning powers. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary seemed to suggest that it was the affair not of his Ministry, but of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. However, when I questioned the Minister of Housing and Local Government, I was told that this was a matter for the planning authorities. In many rural areas the planning authority is the county authority, many members of which will not know precisely all the details of a slaughterhouse. A councillor in such a position might then be guided by information given to him by people more familiar with the locality who might have certain interests affecting their judgment. The second tier authorities may be right in asking that this power should be delegated to them.
Reference has been made to pests and vermin. It was I who raised the question of bluebottles. Some years ago, I lived in a modern house which was half a mile away from a slaughterhouse, yet we were infested by bluebottles which apparently came from the slaughterhouse. As a child, I lived not far from the sort of slaughterhouse which we have in mind. It was a dreadful place, although in those days we took it for granted. However, not only children but adults of a nervous disposition are revolted and shocked when slaughterhouses are atttached to dwelling-houses. Such a slaughterhall is wholly obnoxious. I do not want to introduce class feeling, but hon. Members opposite know quite well that halls such as that do not exist where they live. They exist only in areas of congested population and are attached only to houses which are occupied by workers.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: I fully realise that if we are to get through all the business which we want to conclude today, it will be necessary to curtail some of our speeches. Therefore, what I have to say about this Clause will be brief.
I want the Minister clearly to realise that the new Clause will apply only to new slaughterhouses while allowing thousands of slaughterhouses which are now unfit for slaughtering animals to


continue to exist. If the Minister is prepared to accept the Opposition's Amendment, which, if not going as far as we would like——

Mr. Speaker: We cannot anticipate that. We must wait till we get an opportunity of proposing the Amendments and hearing the discussions.

Mr. Winterbottom: We are discussing how far this new Clause will affect new slaughterhouses alone. Some part of the new Clause must be deleted if we are to deal effectively with the existing slaughterhouses about which we complain, and those parts would he deleted by certain Amendments to be moved in the course of time.
What is the Minister's opinion on this matter? If he is prepared to delete certain conditions in the new Clause, even though that will not go as far as we would like to meet some of our objections, we should be able to support the new Clause. The Minister has not done his best in this legislation. He could have introduced a simple Clause applying the principle in this new Clause to all slaughterhouses, those now in existence and those to be built. Had he done that, he would have rendered a service to the slaughtering industry, but he has not done so.
As it stands, the new Clause will deal only with new slaughterhouses while leaving unaffected for years to come those within the precincts of dwelling-houses.

Mr. John Hare: On the whole, hon. Members have welcomed this new Clause in so far as I have been able to go. I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Member for Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom), but I am not prepared to alter the new Clause, which I have thought about very carefully and put in its present form for the reasons I have given the House. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) asked whether there would be any overlapping as a result of the Clause since local authorities had certain obligations imposed on them. I do not think that it is overlapping, but the Clause will make it abundantly clear to every local authority that it is its duty to enforce this provision where new slaughterhouses are concerned.
The hon. Member also asked why the Clause applied to slaughterhalls and not to slaughterhouses as well. The best reason for not legislating against slaughterhouses as such is that it may well he desirable, on planning and social grounds, to have a dwelling-house quite close to the lairage area for the convenience of the man who looks after the animals in the lairage. Again, this is a matter which we must leave to the good judgment of local authorities.
I have explained to hon. Members—and I hope that this will allay some of the fears of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman)—that many of the slaughterhouses which they have in mind will be eliminated because they will not come up to the required standards.

Mr. Winterbottom: But does not the Minister agree that it will be possible to alter certain slaughterhouses which are within the precincts of dwelling-houses, and which are now being used, so as to bring them within the regulations?

Mr. Hare: I said that some will continue. But a very large number of exactly the kind of case that hon. Members have in mind will not qualify under the new regulations. Also, all those
which will have to have their premises extended will come under the local authorities for planning permission. Therefore, I think that I can honestly say that many of the fears which I know hon. Gentlemen feel will be removed.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: There are two weaknesses in the new Clause, which, I must say, the explanation given by the Minister has not met. First, I should like to join my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) in welcoming the Minister to this debate on the Bill. It was not his Bill originally. The Chancellor of the Exchequer produced it, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Hare) has, therefore, had to read through the OFFICIAL REPORT of many hours of our proceedings in Committee in order to produce these provisions. We appreciate that he is trying to meet the points we put. I should like also to tell the right hon. Gentleman of the very good service rendered by his hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on the Bill. We on


this side should like to compliment the hon. Gentleman on the very efficient way he handled our business and the kindly consideration that he gave to all the matters we put to him.
The first of the two weaknesses which
have not been cleared up to our satisfaction is that the new Clause still has not brought in sight the end of present slaughterhouses attached to dwelling-houses. I am very sorry that the Minister has not felt able to put into the Clause a time limit, which, probably would still have to have an exception, perhaps at the Minister's or the local authority's discretion. Unless the Minister is prepared to look again at this matter of a time limit for existing slaughterhouses attached to dwelling-houses, when shall we get rid of these slaughterhouses, which no one is prepared to defend?
The expert hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin), himself said that he did not like this kind of slaughterhouse and referred to some of them as no better than a hole in the wall. I agree with his description. They are there at the moment because they meet a specific purpose and they come within the licensing arrangements. No one considers that they ought to continue, yet, although the opportunity to dispose of them is now before us, we are not taking advantage of it.
It may well be that the Minister will say that, if he were to put into the Clause a five-year limit, there would still be, at the end of five years, some very special case for a slaughterhouse attached to a dwelling-house to continue. I do not disagree that that might well be so, but what the right hon. Gentleman could do would be to put in a time limit of five years, or whatever he thought appropriate, according to the best advice he could get, and then permit an extension at the discretion of the Minister and/or the local authority, whichever he thought best. Unless he is prepared to look at this matter again and, perhaps, introduce an Amendment in another place, he will not really satisfy what the Parliamentary Secretary said in Committee, which, I am sure, represented everyone's point of view, that we were not very happy about dwelling-houses and slaughterhouses being associated.
We shall not divide upon the Second Reading of the new Clause, but I ask

the Minister to consider whether it is practicable to put in a time limit so that we can say that, at a certain point, such slaughterhouses will go out of existence altogether, except for those where a very special case can be made for retention for a further period.
The other weakness is that the separation from the dwelling-house is related, in the Clause, solely to a slaughterhall. I know that I should not go too deeply into all the discussion that we had in Standing Committee, and it will, perhaps, be sufficient for me to refer the right hon. Gentleman to the recommendations of the inter-departmental Committee. That Committee never recommended that a dwelling-house should be associated with a slaughterhouse, nor did it in fact, to my knowledge, recommend that a slaughterhall should be the only thing not attached to a dwelling-house. In fact, the Committee included a number of other considerations which are listed. I should have thought, therefore, there is the weakness in the Clause that we are not dealing entirely with the complete separation of all the necessary preparatory and other work in the slaughtering of animals to make sure that it is completely separated from the dwelling-house.
I understand the Minister's point that it may well be that drovers and others responsible for the animals should live close by so that they will be able to take care of them. But I am not at all sure that we have followed the actual recommendations of the inter-departmental Committee as closely as we might have done in this Clause. Therefore, while recognising that there is something to be said for a dwelling-house being reasonably close to a lairage, I still feel that the right hon. Gentleman could, without giving anything away, look at the matter again and, perhaps in another place, deal with the two weaknesses to which I have just drawn attention.

Mr. George Darling: May I invite the Minister to answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) about the number of slaughterhouses in the country which are adjacent to dwelling-houses? Surely, this legislation has not been produced out of ignorance. The Minister must know what he is dealing with, how


many slaughterhouses there are in this situation and what legislation is needed to deal with the matter.

Mr. John Hare: If I may, first, respond briefly to what the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) said, I very much appreciate what he said about my hon. Friend, which, I know, gave him very great pleasure, and I appreciate his welcome to me, also. I wish that I could meet the right hon. Gentleman's points. I have given much thought to the matter. If I may say so, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman put his arguments very reasonably and fairly. But, I feel that I tried to put my case very reasonably and fairly, too. I should have liked to help, but I cannot.
I cannot give the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) an exact figure; I wish I could. I know that there is a considerable number of them and they are chiefly in the rural areas. Contrary, I think, to what the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) suggested, they are to be found more in the villages than in the centres of population. I should not like to give any figures unless I knew them to be accurate.

Mr. Darling: This is fantastic. We are told that 4,000 slaughterhouses are now licensed in the country. We have been dealing with this Bill off and on now for many months. During that time, it should have been possible to find out the condition of those 4,000 slaughterhouses. It is not a very great number. I cannot understand why the Ministry, instead of finding out what the situation is, has produced legislation obviously based on a mass of ignorance.

Dr. Stross: I have a question on an important point which I should like to put to the Minister. If the right hon. Gentleman will refer to col. 440 of our proceedings in Standing Committee, he will find it there reported that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) specifically quoted a case from his area where a slaughterhouse is in a school. It was one of a number of cases he described. Does the Minister's refusal to go further with us on the Clause mean that, if this particular abattoir, which is attached to a school, conforms with regulations, there is no power then which can

remove it? I feel that we ought to know about that.

Mr. Hare: I will certainly take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I have been looking at the reference made by the hon. Gentleman. I cannot give him an answer off-hand, but I would have thought that it was very doubtful in that the local authority, with its planning powers, will have a considerable say in this matter. Existing slaughterhouses may have to be brought up to certain conditions and standards.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Clause, in line 3, to leave out from "Act" to the end of line 9.
Perhaps the following Amendment, to leave out lines 22 to 25 of the proposed Clause, can be taken with this one, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
I should like to make one point, first, about the difficulties that we have had over Amendments. We first had notice of this new Clause on Tuesday, 25th March, when it appeared on the Notice Paper, but on the following day an addition was made, which demanded the most meticulous reading to discover the changes that were being proposed. This has happened to most of the Amendments which have been put down by the Government. It has put us to a very great trouble and has probably put the taxpayer to some expense. I have not followed this new Clause to see whether further changes have been made to it but we have been in difficulty and I take this opportunity of making that general protest.
We are making a straightforward point in these Amendments, and I am sorry, having given him modest encouragement, that the right hon. Gentleman has proved so disappointing on this matter. I hope that when he has heard the discussion he will be favourably disposed to the point that we are making.
In short, what we are saying is that we ought now to introduce legislation to ensure that no slaughterhalls—which is not as ambitious as we were in Standing Committee—should be attached to private dwellings. We are reinforced in this view, because it was obviously the view


taken by the inter-departmental Committee. I refer briefly to the fact that in Appendix IL where the Committee set out the minimum essential requirements of a slaughterhouse, the first requirement was:
The slaughterhouse buildings must not adjoin or form part of a building used as a dwelling-house.
I point out, incidentally, that the interdepartmental Committee, with its expert knowledge, did not distinguish between slaughterhalls and slaughterhouses. The fact that the Minister has limited this proposal to slaughterhouses makes the problem, I should have thought, a less difficult one to tackle. The first point, therefore, that we make is that this is something that was recommended by the inter-departmental Committee and, for that reason, ought to be accepted by the Government.
Quite apart from that, we had an extensive debate upon this matter in Standing Committee. I am astonished that anyone should argue today that slaughterhouses should be attached to private dwellings. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) said, "How can you have in our urban localities a slaughterhouse which is not attached to, near to, or adjoining a private dwelling?" The Minister has answered that point. He has said that as far as provision for the future is made slaughter-halls will not be allowed to be adjoining or attached to a dwelling-house.
I should like to put to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North the point that my hon. Friends and I put in Committee. We are dealing with slaughterhouses which were opened after decontrol in 1954. I cannot for the life of me see why we should not say to people who, in the enlightened year of 1954, opened slaughterhouses attached to or forming part of a dwelling-house that they ought to be forthwith closed. I can see no hardship in that. I have no sympathy for anyone who as recently as 1954 started to slaughter animals—and this is what it means—in a private dwelling-house. I said—and it is a fact which can be repeated in respect of almost every other urban area—that we have a slaughterhouse in Sunderland which is in the basement of a shop and dwelling-house. Surely that is a shocking state of affairs that ought to be stopped forthwith.
4.45 p.m.
When the Parliamentary Secretary talks about planning powers he will realise that this argument is against him on this Amendment. Whereas it is arguable that planning powers can be used regarding future licences, the local authority associations have made it clear that planning power cannot be used to tackle this problem. What the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary are saying today is that they are not prepared to stop what I should have thought was an obvious, patent public scandal, something which affronts public decency.
So far, we have not had any argument from the Government to disturb oar belief. My hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) has asked a very relevant question. If the Government were aware of the position, they might argue that to take this step would interfere with meat distribution. But no such case has been put before us. In fact, as my hon. Friend said, such a case cannot be made out. No one—and I defy any hon. Member on this—can produce any evidence of protestation against our proposal. No one in the meat trade has protested. I am sure that the meat trade, as well as anyone else, recognises that the sooner these abominable slaughterhouses are closed the better it will be for everyone.
I join with my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) in paying tribute to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the way in which he conducted the proceedings on the Bill in Committee. We said—and I think that this is conceded—that the Parliamentary Secretary, unfortunately, is often limited in the concessions that he can make, but it is very disappointing, now that the Minister has joined the Parliamentary Secretary, that the Government persist in the same attitude.
Why should the Government refuse to meet us on this point? It is, in all conscience, a very modest request. I agree that I think it is a bad thing to have slaughterhouses adjoined or overlooked by schools. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North would argue against us if we went as far as that. But this is a very modest proposal. We say that these slaughterhouses are easily identifiable. There are abominable


slaughterhouse-basement premises in domestic dwelling-houses in almost any town. We hope that the Minister will agree with us that it is high time that these slaughterhouses were closed.
I hope that the Minister realises that this is a matter of public concern and that we intend to press the Amendment to a Division, if necessary. I hope that he will say that he will meet us on our proposal to close forthwith slaughterhouses which are in the basements of private dwellings, in rooms in private dwellings or attached to private dwellings. In spite of his anticipatory remarks about this Amendment. I hope that when he has heard the arguments advanced in support of it he will agree to accept it.

Mr. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.
First, as I have done so frequently in the Committee, I should like to express disagreement with the view of the Minister that the new regulations will get rid of a lot of the small slaughterhouses now in existence. I have challenged that view consistently throughout the Committee stage and I challenge it now. I am quite willing to get in touch with the right hon. Gentleman in two or three years' time and check with him the number of slaughterhouses put out of existence by the regulations. I am sure that the number will be infinitesimal, because the regulations will not do the job for which they are designed. I have tried to adduce evidence to prove my point, and neither the Parliamentary Secretary nor any of his dumb followers could challenge the views which I have expressed.
In our Amendments to the proposed new Clause we are asking that these old
slaughterhouses which are attached to dwellings shall not be approved. There is a side to the argument on which I find the Government's attitude difficult to understand. They do not know how many slaughterhouses of this type we are dealing with. We are completely ignorant of the effect of the legislation with which we are now dealing. Of course, that is not uncommon with a Conservative Administration. But let us assume that there are many of these slaughterhouses attached to dwellings. Of course, the dwellings will be owned by the people who own the slaughterhouses adjoining.
During the last five or six years the Conservative Government have been putting forward two propositions which are directly related to this matter. One is that under their administration traders in this country have never been so well off as they are now, which surely means that the meat traders can afford to buy decent houses. The other point that they have made is that under a Conservative Administration plenty of houses have been built for meat traders and others to buy. If that is the situation which has been created by the Government, there should be plenty of houses and the butchers should be so well off that each one of them can at least pay a deposit and get a mortgage, take possession of a new house, and close the premises in which he has been living next door to a slaughterhouse.
Surely that is possible if all the claims which have been made by the right
hon. Gentleman and his supporters are true. If the right hon. Gentleman admits that it is not possible for butchers to buy houses so that they can get out of the premises which they now occupy next to slaughterhouses, all these claims for house building and social and economic progress are proved to be completely untrue.
I can see no reason why these premises should be maintained and why the housing part of the premises should not be closed so that people may be prevented from living in them. The Minister has not the faintest idea what will be the effect of this legislation. It is assumed that there are lots of small slaughterhouses attached to living accommodation, and because he hates to interfere with conditions like these to which every decent person objects we are asked to approve the Clause as it stands and allow these premises with slaughterhouses attached to them to remain for years.
Unless our Amendments are accepted, the right hon. Gentleman is saying that the house building programme of the Government has not come up to the standards which we have been led to believe, and that the butchers are not sufficiently well off to get out of the bad premises; and the conditions about which we are protesting will have to continue for a long time.

Mr. John Hare: I do not think that the hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) will be surprised when I say


that I must refuse these Amendments because I have already refused what is contained in them when discussing the new Clause.
I do not wish to repeat in detail what I have already said, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have produced the new Clause because we do not like the principle of dwelling-houses being attached to slaughterhalls. But we have practical reasons, which I have already mentioned, for limiting this provision to existing slaughterhouses. The House must realise that we are dealing with much greater quantities of meat than were being consumed in 1953 or 1952 or 1951. We are now consuming in this country about 25 per cent. more meat than we were consuming about five years ago. Therefore, extra facilities are needed.

Mr. Darling: Has the right hon. Gentleman any information which will prove that point, the point being that the slaughtering facilities of a kind of which we would all approve are used to the full and that there is no surplus capacity?

Mr. John Hare: My information is that the slaughterhouses which the hon. Gentleman has in mind would not cope with what is needed now in such a way as to give an effective distribution of meat. However, I have my opinion and the hon. Gentleman has his, and we could argue about this until the cows came home. I think that the House understands my reasons. I am sorry that I cannot meet the hon. Gentleman.

Dr. Stross: The right hon. Gentleman has attempted to give reasons why he cannot give way on these Amendments. The reasons that he has given are misplaced and unconvincing. If we accept what he says, that because the consumption of meat is 25 per cent. greater than five years ago this type of slaughterhouse must be allowed to continue, on condition that it will conform to the regulations which we are now discussing, it would still place us at the bottom of the league as compared with progressive countries. His argument will not hold water.
We did not mind when the Parliamentary Secretary adduced arguments of that sort in Standing Committee, because

we had a great deal of sympathy with him for the burden which he had to carry, absolutely alone, for a long time. We grew not only to be fond of him, but to respect and admire the way he slid away from difficult positions. But the Minister must not expect such kindness from us. He must not come here with such foolish arguments and expect us to accept them, because we know something about this matter. His arguments are of no use to us, because we know that they are absolutely incorrect.
In Scandinavian countries and other advanced countries, like Holland, and in every discussion held by experts of the World Health Organisation, it is accepted that the proper thing to do is to concentrate the killing of beasts and to move the meat about rather than to move the cattle. In these days there are vans for moving meat in ideal conditions. It is better to move dead meat than to move living animals long distances, in view of the damage which can be done to them and the infection which can arise. It is better than leaving live animals for long periods of time in market places and in their lairages.
With modern, refrigerated meat vans we could get over this difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman has described to us, at very small cost. If, however, we gave way to him without protest it would mean that for probably fifty years Britain would be regarded as one of the backward nations in Europe, and probably in the whole world, from this point of view.
This is an important matter. Connected with this issue are difficulties of inspection when we have a multiplicity of small slaughterhouses, and the Minister is perpetuating in principle this state of affairs when he asks us to withdraw our Amendment. We say to him that we do not want to do so. I hope that my hon. Friend will ask us to divide the House if the Minister will not give way.
5.0 p.m.
We were told that some of the worst slaughterhouses will not be allowed to stay open, but we do not trust the regulations as being a sufficient safeguard because they do not go far enough. We said again and again during the Committee stage that in this country we are fifty years behind the practice in Scotland. We said—and there were no Scotsmen on the


Committee to deny it—that the Scots would not tolerate a Clause of this description for one moment. Scotland is far ahead of us in these matters, as in so many others.
I say again that the Minister must not expect from us the tolerance that we showed towards his Parliamentary Secretary. Kindness and understanding we will give the right hon. Gentleman, but we shall be as blunt as possible today about these matters.

Mr. Hayman: Can my hon. Friend say whether Northern Ireland was excluded from the Bill because conditions there are better or worse than in this country?

Dr. Stross: I regret very much——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Northern Ireland is not in the Bill and it would be out of order for the hon. Member to discuss it now.

Mr. Winterbottom: When the Minister moved his proposed new Clause, I asked a question and he was good enough to say that my conclusions were right, namely, that partially renovated slaughterhouses attached to dwelling-houses would be allowed to continue indefinitely under the regulations as he envisages them. Now, however, the right hon. Gentleman has said, in reply to our Amendments, that although he agrees with the principle we have been arguing he cannot accept it for existing slaughterhouses, only for new ones. His reason was that, if he did so, there would not be enough slaughterhouses in which to kill the cattle necessary to meet the demand of the people for meat, because there has been an increase of 25 per cent. in meat consumption.
Whoever has given the Minister that brief has forgotten the history of slaughterhouses over the last five years. We argued the difficulties over slaughterhouses in 1955 when there were 600 of them in this country. From a health point of view, they did the work more efficiently than it is being done today, for those 600 dealt with the entire meat consumption of England and Wales. Today, their number has increased to 4200, which is a sixfold increase in slaughterhouses for a 25 per cent. increase in meat consumption. It is idle for the Minister to tell us that he cannot deal with the old, unhygienic, disreputable type of slaughterhouses, and

that he will allow them to remain simply on the plea that meat consumption has increased by 25 per cent.
If the Minister told that even to the cattle going into some of the disreputable slaughterhouses they would turn round and kill him, and he would deserve it. Frankly, the Minister has come here without any knowledge of slaughterhouses, hoping to get away with it by his very charming manner. His Joint Parliamentary Secretary did the same during the Committee stage—I give him that gratuitously—but do not let the Minister think that he can get away with statements that have no relation to truth.
The increase in the number of slaughterhouses from 600 to 4,200 during the last few years means that there are far more than are necessary for all the killing required to meet the meat consumption of this country, and yet the Minister says that the worst of them will remain. I believe that somewhere in the history of the Government's attention to slaughterhouses some influence has been brought to bear which is not good for the health of this community, nor is it in the interests of humane and efficient slaughtering. I know that the Minister will reject our Amendments, but I tell him that from the point of view of clean and healthy slaughtering the rejection of our appeal to close existing, disreputable slaughterhouses will always reflect against him to his discredit.

Mr. Willey: We have had a very disappointing reply from the Minister. He paved the way for it by saying in anticipation that his reply would be disappointing, but I did not think he would be as offhand as he has been. The right hon. Gentleman has an agreeable, engaging manner, but it will not do to say that there are practical reasons why the Government cannot agree to the Amendments and then make the mistake of revealing those practical reasons.
Apparently, his practical reasons were that a larger quantity of meat is being distributed than was the case in 1954. In 1954, there were 477 slaughterhouses. Is his argument this, that we are now distributing ten times as much meat as we were then because we now have 4,500 slaughterhouses? The Minister went on to say that our Amendments might interfere with effective meat distribution. Under


Tory freedom, must we have ten times the manpower engaged on distribution than we had previously? If that is the fact, this is one of the reasons why we are facing such high prices for meat in the shops. It is a remarkable revelation to be made by a Tory Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, that apparently we must take out of our strained manpower now ten times as many people to distribute meat as previously.

Mr. John Hare: Mr. John Hare indicated dissent.

Mr. Wiley: The Minister shakes his head, but that is the argument he has used. I can understand the right hon. Gentleman being embarrassed. If we pursue the argument a little further, perhaps we shall see where Tory freedom will take us. Previously, we had 12,000 slaughterhouses but the point we are engaged upon is this: whether, in their search for Tory freedom, the Tories threw over all sense of public decency and propriety? Because no one in this House would deny that the majority of the 12,000 slaughterhouses in operation before the war were a disgrace. Fortunately, they are not all open now, but 4,500 are open and we do not know, and the Minister is too coy to tell us, how many of them are attached to dwelling-houses.
There is one person in this country who knows, and that is the right hon. Gentleman. He knows because he licensed those slaughterhouses. It is true that under this Bill he is repealing Section 64 of the principal Act. What does that Section provide? It provides that a slaughterhouse licence shall not be granted except with the consent of the Minister. Have we been having a state of affairs in which the Minister has given his consent without thinking it proper to inquire whether the slaughterhouse is a part of a dwelling-house? Does he know?

Mr. Winterbottom: He does not know.

Mr. Willey: There has either been a disgraceful lack of public responsibility in administering this provision or, alternatively, the Minister is concealing from the House facts which ought to be put before it.
This is a very serious charge to make. Why? Because the Minister's case is that he and his predecessor, Viscount Tenby, opened so many slaughterhouses

forming part of dwelling-houses that it would now affect the distribution of meat if those slaughterhouses were to be closed. What a disgraceful state of affairs to be in? Is this Tory freedom? Slaughtering animals in the back room or in the basement of a house—is that Tory freedom?
Surely the right hon. Gentleman, however agreeable and pleasant he may be, cannot expect us to accept an explanation of that sort, because, as I say, he happens to be the one person who knows. If he does not know, then it is obvious that there has been disgraceful maladministration by Viscount Tenby and even by the Chancellor himself. After all, we were in Committee for a considerable time, and this is information which ought to be available now. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will add a little realism to our discussions and say that he will accept the Amendment. If he cannot accept it in its present form, let him set a term and say that within eighteen months all these slaughterhouses will be closed.
I am sure that even hon. Gentlemen opposite—they are obviously looking very discomfited—would not like to take a decision that slaughterhouses forming part of dwelling-houses shall remain in operation. I am sure that everyone feels that that is an affront to public decency. Not only that, it is a threat to public hygiene. We have been discussing the Bill since November, but so doctrinaire are the present Government that they are afraid to get up and say, "We are not any longer going to have slaughterhouses in people's dwelling-houses." If the Government are not prepared to say that, they will be stigmatised.
5.15 p.m.
We know into what difficulties the present Government got when they discussed the Food and Drugs Bill and the difficulty we had then of persuading the Government to accept provisions to ensure safety in public hygiene. But this is more than ensuring decent conditions of public hygiene. This is a question of standards of living. It is absolutely disgraceful that in 1958 this country cannot say that we are not going to have slaughterhouses in private dwellings. Unless we can get a more satisfactory reply from the right hon. Gentleman, we shall have no alternative but to vote for the Amendment.

Mr. John Hare: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is, of course, a most eloquent speaker. Indeed, he is so eloquent that he himself almost believes the things he says. He works himself up to a great pitch of enthusiasm. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is not ignorant—it would be very unfair to accuse him of being ignorant—and that he knows perfectly well that the Minister of Food does not license slaughterhouses which were opened before the war and which were allowed to be reopened by my predecessor. He knows that I am only responsible for licensing new slaughterhouses.
The other point made by the hon. Gentleman was that because there were 400-odd slaughterhouses and now there are about 4,000 slaughterhouses, that automatically means that there are ten times more people engaged in the distribution of meat. He knows perfectly well that the slaughterhouses then were the large slaughterhouses and that those which
have been added since are smaller ones. Therefore, to use the argument that because there are now ten times more slaughterhouses there are automatically ten times more people engaged in distribution is not true.
What I said was that because, fortunately, there is a larger amount of meat to be consumed in the country today we require extra resources to see that it is

efficiently distributed. I had to correct the hon. Gentleman about the things he said, and I am sorry that, despite his eloquence, I cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Willey: The Minister has been very careful not to say whether or not this information is available in his Department.

Sir Peter Roberts: This is the Report stage.

Mr. Willey: Yes, this is Report stage, but the Minister spoke three times. This happens to be my Amendment. If the hon. Gentleman has any objection to make, he should make it against his own side.
The right hon. Gentleman has not answered the question. That was the charge made against him. It was quite clear when we discussed the 1954 Bill that the Ministry would retain control of slaughterhouses. That was the basis of the Bill. If the Ministry has not the information, then it ought to have it. The right hon. Gentleman has been careful not to deny that his Department has the information.
Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 249, Noes 215.

Division No. 89.]
AYES
[[...]19 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Erroll, F. J.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bryan, P.
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Finlay, Graeme


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fisher, Nigel


Arbuthnot, John
Carr, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Armstrong, C. W.
Cary, Sir Robert
Fort, R.


Ashton, H.
Channon, Sir Henry
Foster, John


Atkins, H. E.
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Cooke, Robert
Gammans, Lady


Balniel, Lord
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Barber, Anthony
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Barter, John
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Glover, D.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)



Beamish, Col. Tufton
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Glyn, Col. Richard H.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Godber, J. B.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cunningham, Knox
Goodhart, Philip


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Currie, G. B. H.
Gough, C. F. H.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Dance, J. C. G.
Gower, H. R.


Bidgood, J. C.
Davidson, Viscountess
Graham, Sir Fergus


Bingham, R. M.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grant, w. (Woodside)


Bishop, F. P.
Deedes, W. F.
Grant-Ferris, Wg. Cdr. R.(NantWich)


Black, C. W.
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Green, A.


Body, R. F.
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Grimond, J.


Bonham-Carter, Capt. M. R.
Doughty, C. J. A.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
du Cann, E. D. L.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Boyd-Carpenter Rt. Hon. J. A.
Duncan, Sir James
Gurden, Harold


Boyle, Sir Edward
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Braine, B. R.
Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Brooman-White R. C.
Errington, Sir Eric
Harrison, A. B, C. (Maldon)




Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Rawlinson, Peter


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Redmayne, M.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Longden, Gilbert
Renton, D. L. M.


Hay, John
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Ridsdala, J. E.


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
McAdden, S. J.
Robertson, Sir David


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
McKibbin, Alan
Russell, R. S.


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Sharples, R. C.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Speir, R. M.


Holt, A. F.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hornby, R. P.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Horobin, Sir Ian
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Maddan, Martin
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Storey, S.


Howard, John (Test)
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Marshall, Douglas
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hurd, A. R.
Mathew, R.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Teeling, W.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh.W.)
Mawby, R. L.
Temple, John M.


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hyde, Montgomery
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.



Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Iremonger, T. L.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Johnson, Dr. Ronald (Carlisle)
Nicholls, Harmar
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey(Hall Green)
Nicolson,N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Joseph, Sir Keith
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Oakshott, H. D.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Kaberry, D.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Keegan, D.

Wade, D. W.


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St.M'lebone)


Kershaw, J. A.
Osborne, C.
Wall, Patrick


Kimball, M.
Page, R. G.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Kirk, P. M.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Lagden, G. W.
Partridge, E.
Webbe, Sir H.


Lambton, Viscount
Peel, W. J.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Leavey, J. A.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Leburn, W. G.
Pitman, I. J.
Woollam, John Victor


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Powell, J. Enoch



Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Ramsden, J. E.
Mr. Gibson-Watt and




Mr. Chichester-Clark.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Carmichael, J.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Albu, A. H.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Champion, A. J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Chapman, W. D.
Fernyhough, E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Finch, H. J.


Awbery, S. S.
Clunie, J.
Foot, D. M.


Baird, J.
Coldrick, W.
Forman, J. C.


Balfour, A.
Collins, V. J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Cove, W. G.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)



Benson, Sir George
Cronin, J. D.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Beewick, Frank
Crossman, R. H. S.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Grey, C. F.


Blackburn, F.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Boardman, H.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Hale, Leslie


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bowles, F. G.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hamilton, W. W.


Boyd, T. C.
Deer, G.
Hannan, W.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Brock way, A. F.
Delargy, H. J.
Hastings, S.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Diamond, John
Hayman, F. H.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Donnelly, D. L.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)


Burke, W. A.
Dye, S.
Herblson, Miss M.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Hewitson, Capt. M.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Holman, P.


Callaghan, L. J.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Holmes, Horace







Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Mellish, R J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Mitchison, G. R.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Hoy, J. H.
Monslow, W.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moody, A. S.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Sorensen, R. W.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hunter, A. E.
Mort, D. L.
Sparks, J. A.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Moss, R.
Steele, T.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Moyle, A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Mulley, F. W.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Janner, B.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Oliver, G. H.
Swingler, S. T.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Oram, A. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn&amp;St.Pncs.S.)
Orbach, M.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Oswald, T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Owen, W. J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Padley, W. E.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)




Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne valley)
Thornton, E.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Timmons, J.


King, Dr. H. M.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Tomney, F.


Lawson, G. M.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Ledger, R. J.
Parkin, B. T.
Usborne, H. C.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)

Viant, S. P.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Paton, John
Watkins, T. E.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Pearson, A.
Weitzman, D.


Lewis, Arthur
Peart, T. F.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Lindgren, G. S.
Pentland, N.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Logan, D. G.
Popplewell, E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Prentice, R. E.
Willey, Frederick


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, David (Neath)


McCann, J.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


MacColl, J. E.
Probert, A. R.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


McGhee, H. G.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


McGovern, J.
Pryde, D. J.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


McInnes, J.
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rankin, John
Winterbottom, Richard


McLeavy, Frank
Redhead, E. C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Reeves, J.
Woof, R. E.


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rhodes, H.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Mahon, Simon
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Zilliacus, K.


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)



Mann, Mrs. Jean
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Marquand, Rt Hon. H. A.
Ross, William
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers


Mason, Roy
Short, E. W.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Clause, to leave out lines 22 to 25.—[Mr. Willey.]


Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Clause:—


The House divided: Ayes 250, Noes 209.

Division No. 90.]
AYES
[5.29 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Deedes, W. F.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Digby, Simon Wingfield


Alport, C. J. M.
Boyle, Sir Edward
Dodds-Parker, A. D.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat(Tiverton)
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Doughty, C. J. A.


Arbuthnot, John
Brooman-White, R. C.
du Cann, E. D. L.


Armstrong, C. W.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Ashton, H.
Bryan, P.
Duncan, Sir James


Atkins, H. E.
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)


Baldwin, A. E.
Burden, F. F. A.
Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)


Balniel, Lord
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Barber, Anthony
Cary, Sir Robert
Errington, Sir Eric


Barter, John
Channon, Sir Henry
Erroll, F. J.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)



Beamish, Col. Tufton
Cooke, Robert
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Finlay, Graeme


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Fisher, Nigel


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fort, R.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Foster, John


Bidgood, J. C.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Cunningham, Knox
Gammans, Lady


Bishop, F. P.
Currie, G. B. H.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Black, C. W.
Dance, J. C. G.
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Body, R. F.
Davidson, Viscountess
Glover, D.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Glyn, Col. Richard H.







Godber, J. B.
Kershaw, J. A.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Goodhart, Philip
Kimball, M.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Gough, C. F. H.
Kirk, P. M.
Pitman, I. J.


Gower, H. R.
Lagden, G. W.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Lambton, Viscount
Powell, J. Enoch


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Leather, E. H. C.
Ramsden, J. E.


Green, A.
Leavey, J. A.
Rawlinson, Peter


Grimond, J.
Leburn, W. G.
Redmayne, M.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Renton, D. L. M.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Gurden, Harold
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Robertson, Sir David


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Longden, Gilbert
Russell, R. S.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Sharples, R. C.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
McAdden, S. J.
Speir, R. M.



Macdonald, Sir Peter
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Hay, John
McKibbin, Alan
Stevens, Geoffrey


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Storey, S.


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Maddan, Martin
Teeling, W.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Temple, John M.


Holt, A. F.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hornby, R. P.
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Horobin, Sir Ian
Marshall, Douglas
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Mathew, R.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Mawby, R. L.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Howard, John (Test)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Vane, W. M. F.


Hurd, A. R.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Wade, D. W.


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hyde, Montgomery
Nicholls, Harmar
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Wall, Patrick


Iremonger, T. L.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nugent, G. R. H.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Oakshott, H. D.
Webbe, Sir H.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
O'Neill, Hn.Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Osborne, C.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Page, R. G.
Woollam, John Victor


Kaberry, D.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Keegan, D.
Partridge, E.



Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Peel, W. J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Peyton, J. W. W.
Mr. Gibson-Wart and




Mr. Chichester-Clark.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Albu, A. H.
Burke, W. A.
Deer, G.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Delargy, H. J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Callaghan, L. J,
Diamond, John


Awbery, S. S.
Carmichael, J.
Donnelly, D. L.


Balfour, A.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Dye, S.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Champion, A. J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Chapman, W. D.



Benson, Sir George
Chetwynd, G. R.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Beswick, Frank
Clunie, J.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Coldrick, W.
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Blackburn, F.
Collins,V.J.(Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)


Boardman, H.
Cove, W. G.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Fernyhough, E.


Bowden H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Cronin, J. D.
Finch, H. J.


Bowles, F. G.
Crossman, R. H. S.
Foot, D. M.


Boyd, T. C.
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Forman, J. C.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Brockway, A. F.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.







Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McGovern, J.
Rhodes, H.


Grey, C. F.
McInnes, J.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McLeavy, Frank
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Hale, Leslie
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Ross, William


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Short, E. W.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mahon, Simon
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Hannan, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Hastings, S.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sorensen, R. W.


Hayman, F. H.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Mason, Roy
Sparks, J. A.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mellish, R. J.
Steele, T.


Holman, P.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Holmes, Horace
Monslow, W.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Moody, A. S.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hoy, J. H.
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Swingler, S. T.


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Mort, D. L.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moss, R.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moyle, A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hunter, A. E.
Mulley, F. W.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Thornton, E.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Oliver, G. H.
Timmons, J.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oram, A. E.
Tomney, F.


Janner, B.
Orbach, M.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Oswald, T.



Jeger, George (Goole)
Owen, W. J.
Usborne, H. C.


Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)
Padley, W. E.
Viant, S. P.


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Watkins, T. E.


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Weitzman, D.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wheeldon, W. E.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Parkin, B. T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Paton, John
Willey, Frederick


King, Dr. H. M.
Pearson, A.
Williams, David (Neath)


Lawson, G. M.
Peart, T. F.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Ledger, R. J.
Pentland, N.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Popplewell, E.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Prentice, R. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Lewis, Arthur
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Lindgren, G. S.
Probert, A. R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Logan, D. G.
Proctor, W. T.
Woof, R. E.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Pryde, D. J.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


McCann, J.
Rankin, John
Zilliacus, K.


MacColl, J. E.
Redhead, E. C.



McGhee, H. G.
Reeves, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.

Clause added to the Bill.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The remainder of the new Clauses are either out of order or are not selected.

Mr. Darling: On a point of order. I understand, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that you are not calling the next new Clause—(Stunning pens.). I do not, of course, want to challenge your Ruling, but in Committee, when we discussed the matter, the Parliamentary Secretary told us that consultations were taking place. My information is that the hon. Gentleman has rather misled us, and I think it would be wrong if the record in the Committee reports stood without some correction being made now about those consultations.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member may be keen to have it recalled, but the new Clause is not selected.

Mr. Winterbottom: May I call your attention, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the new Clause which deals with Sunday slaughtering? Having in mind the importance of the Clause and the fact that under Sunday slaughtering there are many malpractices and, in some cases, things that can only be described as jiggery pokery in the trade, may I ask whether the Clause cannot be discussed?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: To which new Clause is the hon. Member referring?

Mr. Winterbottom: The last one, entitled "Prohibition of slaughtering on Sundays."

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is not selected.

Mr. Winterbottom: Further to that point of order. I shall be very glad, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if it is possible for you


to let us have the reasons why the Clause has not been selected, in view of its importance.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member comes to see me privately I will tell him, but I cannot tell him now.

Clause 1.—(LICENSING OF SLAUGHTER-HOUSES—GENERAL.)

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out lines 17 to 20 and to insert "then".
It might be convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we were to consider at the same time the later Amendment in page 2, line 35, at the end to insert:
and section sixty-five of the principal Act shall not apply in any case to which this subsection applies".
to which the present Amendment is a paving Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Certainly.

Mr. Godber: I have been grateful for some of the remarks made earlier by hon. Members opposite. They have been much too kind with me. It is a considerable embarrassment to me with my own hon. Friends to have remarks of this sort made, but I am none the less appreciative.
This is the first of a number of Amendments which have been introduced with a view to meeting what was a constant theme of criticism running through our Committee stage debates, concerning the drafting of the Bill. We have taken those criticisms very seriously and have tried to do our utmost to clarify the Bill and to help hon. Members opposite, and, in particular, the diligent slaughterman, whom we shall never forget. The first Amendment deletes a reference to Section 65. It deletes it from this point in subsection (2) and reinserts it at the end of subsection (2). It is a simple, drafting Amendment which we think will add clarification to the Bill.

Mr. Willey: The Amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary has moved is acceptable because it deletes part of the Bill, and we can only hope that many more such Amendments will be acceptable to the Government and that this part of the Bill will be completely deleted. I am, however, in some personal difficulty. I appreciate that the Amendment merely alters the order in which this

appears in the Bill, but we shall shortly be discussing Amendments to parts of the Bill which lie between the words where they are now and where they will be when we reach the Amendment in line 35.
This is a paving Amendment, and we think that it should be accepted because it deletes part of the Bill, but my view about the Amendment in line 35 will depend upon what happens to other Amendments which we consider before we reach it. I therefore hope that if we accept this Amendment we shall have an opportunity of discussing the other Amendment for which the Parliamentary Secretary states that this Amendment paves the way. Subject to that, we have no objection to this Amendment.

Mr. Godber: It is entirely for you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to rule how we shall deal with this matter, but I thought that we were discussing the two Amendments together. Presumably there will be an opportunity for hon. Members to vote on the second Amendment when it arises, after these other matters have been considered.

Mr. Wiley: With great respect, it is not as simple as that. The Amendment for which this paves the way refers to Section 65, which refers to byelaws made under Section 68. An Amendment which we are about to reach deals with byelaws under Section 68. We are in an extraordinarily difficult position if we are told that we can discuss this matter in advance of that Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is quite usual to do it in this way. If the paving Amendment were defeated the substantive Amendment would not be called. Generally, we discuss them together. If the House so wishes, I am willing to call a Division straight away on the first Amendment and to discuss the question when we reach the second Amendment.

Mr. Wiley: We do not propose to divide on the first Amendment, because we agree that these words should be deleted. I am trying to safeguard the debate which will arise on the Amendment to line 35.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I hoped we should have that debate now, but if the hon. Member prefers to have it later that will be satisfactory.

Mr. Willey: It would be much more convenient and would expedite consideration of the Bill if we took the Amendments in order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Very well.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 2. line 9, after "slaughterhouse", to insert:
under the licence or renewed licence".
This is a very small drafting Amendment designed to make the matter absolutely clear, and there is no point in my elaborating it.

Amendment agreed to.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out "and".
This Amendment goes with the next Amendment in line 13, after "two", to insert:
and of all byelaws, if any, made by the authority and for the time being in force under section sixty-eight of the principal Act".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Very well.

Mr. Godber: These two Amendments provide for a matter which we discussed in some detail in Committee and accepts a point of view advanced by hon. Members opposite, who contended that it would be wrong to take away powers under byelaws where the byelaw was more restrictive than the powers which we provide in the Bill. We in no way wish the Bill to detract from the restrictive powers in relation to the slaughterhouses where byelaws are already in existence. We want to maintain standards. Indeed, the general purpose of the Bill is to improve standards. Hon. Members had a valid point that we might unintentionally in some areas delete powers which ought not to be deleted. We are grateful to them for raising it.

Mr. Willey: I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for meeting us on this point. In Committee, he met us about the model byelaws—our Amendment was unnecessary for that purpose—and he agreed to look again into the question of other byelaws, which he has kindly done. We are glad that he has put down the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 13, after "two", insert
and of all byelaws, if any, made by the authority and for the time being in force under section sixty-eight of the principal Act".—[Mr. Godber.]

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 2, line 16, to leave out from "by" to "this" in line 30 and to insert:
section two, four, five or section (Isolation of slaughterhalls from dwellings) of this Act; or

(iii) in a case to which subsection (3) of Section 2 of this Act applies, the Minister has consented to the refusal;
and".

This is the first of the more substantial drafting Amendments. We are trying to tidy up the Bill in the way hon. Members suggested, and this Amendment deletes, among other things, paragraph (d), which caused a great deal of comment in Committee. I am sorry to see it go, because I spent a lot of time learning what it meant and now, I fear, all that knowledge is wasted. Nevertheless, in view of the comments made, and always with the "diligent slaughterman" in our minds, we have tried to deal with this point. Later, in Clause 2 (3), we shall rewrite Section 75 (4) of the 1955 Act into the Bill, and we think that that will help to clarify the position. It enables us to delete some very abstruse passages from the Bill.
There is also a small addition earlier which is consequential upon my right hon. Friend's new Clause, which he moved earlier. I hope that the Amendment will commend itself to hon. Members. I leave paragraph (d) with some regret, but I hope that hon. Members will find the Amendment an improvement in the Bill.

Mr. Willey: I am delighted to see that paragraph go. I confess that I doubt whether I fully understood it. My difficulty, however, is that of receiving Amendments on this scale at this stage in our proceedings and of being satisfied whether or not they are an improvement. It is extraordinary that at this stage of the Bill we should have all these very substantial Amendments. In spite of that, however, it is a relief to know that paragraph (d) has been deleted. I concede in this case that the words to be inserted seem clearer and more easily understood.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, to leave out "they apply" and insert "it applies".
I am sure that this Amendment commends itself to the House, and I trust that it will not be necessary for me to explain it at length. It is a purely drafting Amendment and is consequential upon the Amendment that we have just agreed to.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 2, line 35, at the end to insert:
and section sixty-five of the principal Act shall not apply in any case to which this subsection applies".
I had already sought to explain this Amendment at an earlier stage. It is a reinsertion of the reference to Section 65 of the principal Act—which we deleted only a moment ago—in another spot. It is with the intention of meeting points put forward by hon. Members opposite that we seek to do this. I want to make it clear that we think it is necessary to retain the reference to Section 65; we are merely changing its position. I gather that the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is not happy about the position, and I shall endeavour to deal with any points that he may raise.

Mr. Winterbottom: I apologise to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for laughing at him a moment ago. I am so glad that the Government have now made up their minds.

Mr. Willey: My difficulty is that although the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, "All we have done is to alter the place in which this provision occurs", he has paid no attention to the fact that he has amended the provisions as they occur. One of the Amendments that we have made refers to
all byelaws, if any, made by the authority and for the time being in force under section sixty-eight of the principal Act
but when we turn to Section 65 of the principal Act we find a reference to
any byelaws made by the authority in force under section sixty-eight of this Act.
By reinserting these words we are now saying that Section 65 of the principal Act shall not apply.
I do not apologise for being obscure, because I complain once again that it is extraordinarily difficult to understand the

Bill, and on the face of it this appears to be a contradiction. There may be an explanation: we are certainly entitled to one before we allow the Amendment to pass, otherwise we might find that we have been given a concession by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in all good faith, but by a little pedantic draftsmanship he has taken it away again. The House is entitled to hear his explanation why this provision reappears when, in Section 65 of the principal Act, it already exists.

Mr. Godber: There is no intention to take away what we have just given in relation to byelaws. As I understand it, by inserting the reference to byelaws in this subsection all that we have said is that Section 65 shall not apply where this subsection applies. If the subsection does not apply Section 65 applies, and the reference to the byelaws is retained there. There is a reference to the byelaws in Section 65 for certain cases, and we now have new words in relation to byelaws written into the Bill in this subsection, for other cases. We now cover both kinds of case.

Mr. Wiley: If, by leave, I may speak again, I do not wish to pursue this point unduly, and I accept the explanation given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, but I am not sure that a court would accept it. The point should be looked at again. We are here providing that Section 65 shall not apply, and that Section provides for a local authority refusing an application on certain specific grounds. It is quite true that we can say that the subsection itself makes a provision in regard to byelaws, and that provision therefore remains, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to assure us that he will consider the point again. It might be open to another construction.

Mr. Godber: If, by leave, I may speak again, I must say that I find it difficult to accept the hon. Member's point, but I will examine it again. We are saying that this subsection (2) shall apply to new slaughterhouses and Section 65 shall be retained only in relation to old slaughterhouses. The two provisions are independent of each other. Byelaws are provided in Section 65 and we have now written them into subsection (2). In the case of old slaughterhouses, the provisions of Section 65 remain in force until the appointed day for the area when the old


slaughterhouses will come under the provisions of subsection (2). I feel confident that the matter is in order, but I will look into it again in view of the hon. Member's doubts.

Mr. Hayman: The House would like an assurance from the Minister that he fully understands the explanation given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary.

Mr. John Hare: I think that my hon. Friend has been very clear.

Mr. Robens: Most hon. Members are now clear about this matter, but I am not. The reason why I am not clear is that we have to read the Bill now before us together with the Amendments passed a few moments ago. If we do that it begins to make sense, but the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will agree that it may well be that his brief has already put these words in. To those of us who are reading the Bill, plus the Amendments, and trying to make out what the new Bill says, the position is not clear, and needs some explaining.
My only purpose in rising is to ask the hon. Gentleman whether I understand him correctly. As I understand it, the words that we have just inserted provide all that we wanted in relation to byelaws, and if we agree to the present Amendment we shall not prejudice the position in regard to the byelaws by reason of the Amendment that we have just passed.

Mr. Godber: Mr. Godber indicated assent.

Mr. Robens: I think that that makes it much clearer, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am sure that you have got the point. It is very important, because byelaws are important, and we certainly do not want to create a situation where we think that we have made sure that local authority byelaws in relation to slaughterhouses have been satisfied while, at the same time, we unwittingly take away the advantages of the main Act in which we sought to preserve the powers of local authorities. But I am satisfied, now that the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated his assent to what I have said, that it is the words we have previously put in which we have to read as well, and that makes sense of this Amendment.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. Godber: That is the position, but I wish to make clear that these two things are quite separate. Section 65 of the

1955 Act, and subsection (2) of this Bill, are separate. Section 65 refers to the old slaughterhouses and in it we have written a reference to the byelaws. The criticism on Committee stage was that we had no reference in subsection (2) relating to the new slaughterhouses. That has been put right and the subsection will eventually overtake Section 65. So this Bill covers both cases.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 2, line 38, to leave out "in certain circumstances" and to insert:
where the authority are satisfied that the slaughterhouse facilities available in their district are adequate for the time being".
All hon. Members will agree that certain aspects of this Bill are rather complicated. Hon. Members on both sides of the House are anxious that we should make the Bill as clear as possible, considering the complication of the subject, and as clear as our friends in the legal profession will allow.
We may perhaps consider this Amendment with the Amendment in my name, in page 2, line 44. These two Amendments go together.
Without in any way changing the sense of what is in the Bill, I think that we have made it a little easier to understand. As it stands, it is legislation by reference pure and simple. We all dislike that and avoid it if possible. By spelling out what are the certain circumstances, and, later, the other circumstances which are referred to, I hope that we make it reasonably clear to the ordinary reader—which applies to me as well as anyone else—what this reference to Section 76 of the principal Act is about.

Mr. Willey: We are obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his explanation——

Mr. Darling: Lucid explanation.

Mr. Wiley: My hon. Friend wishes we to say "lucid explanation". This provides a better description for the benefit of the "diligent slaughterman". Again, this illustrates the difficulty of this Bill and emphasises the criticism we made about legislation by reference. It is a great pity that we have not had a Bill more easy to understand.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 44, leave out, "in other circumstances" and insert:
by reason of the provision of slaughterhouse facilities by that or another local authority."—[Mr. Hare.]

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 3, line 11, to leave out "alternative".
This is purely a paving Amendment for the next Amendment. Perhaps we might discuss them together.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Godber: The second Amendment is in line 18, on the same page.
The Amendment takes up a rather important point made by hon. Members opposite during the Committee stage discussions. We are here rewriting Section 75 (1, b) of the 1955 Act. The purpose of this rather involved form of words is to provide for a case referred to in the Committee stage discussions where a local authority wished to prevent the erection of new slaughterhouses and to operate under a Section 75 resolution based on a public slaughterhouse in the area of an adjoining authority.
This position was referred to particularly in the Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye). To bring in such a resolution a local authority would have to abolish or reduce the slaughterhouses in its area. The point was made that a local authority might not wish to abolish existing slaughterhouses, but might wish to prevent the erection of further slaughterhouses. In order to achieve that we have found it necessary to rewrite Section 75 (1, b) of the principal Act.
This Amendment should commend itself to the House in that it will put local authorities in a better position to deal with that problem. I hope hon. Members opposite will feel that it is of assistance.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation; I am obliged to him for his endeavour to meet us, and I am obliged to him for the Amendment which, with a little research, is more intelligible than what we have in the Bill. My difficulty is that if we look at part of Section 75, to which we are referred, it provides that the local authority may determine that there shall

be no fresh slaughterhouse licence where it is of opinion:
that slaughterhouse facilities in their district ought to be abolished or reduced having regard to the existence of adequate alternative slaughterhouse facilities provided by another authority.
In place of that, we have the words:
are of opinion that, having regard to the availability of slaughterhouse facilities provided by another authority, slaughterhouse facilities within their district ought to be abolished or reduced, or ought not to be increased, or are not required.
I hesitate to accept the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation without being assured that the effect of this change will not be more than he states. We have written into this provision the words:
… having regard to the availability of slaughterhouse facilities provided by another authority …
This is another good illustration of the difficulty of legislation by reference. To satisfy myself about this I should have to make a more exhaustive examination of the provisions of the principal Act and the effect of this Amendment upon that Act. For that reason I should prefer to avoid providing such provisions by legislation by reference. Why could not the Parliamentary Secretary make provision here without going back to the principal Act? Why not make a provision which we could have understood instead of having to go back to this part of the Section of the principal Act which is being amended? We should be given a fuller and better explanation. We should have the Law Officers of the Crown present this afternoon. This is not a matter for the Parliamentary Secretary. It is a matter of considerable importance. It is purely a question of putting the proper legal construction upon the matter.
We know that the Government put down five and a half pages of Amendments on one day, and three or four pages of Amendments the next day amending the Amendments that they had already put down. We had another Amendment or two on the third day. We have had Amendments on the Order Paper for a few days. That is why I am hesitant about this Amendment. We are discussing a complicated and difficult matter. I quite see that the Parliamentary Secretary is endeavouring to meet the point which we raised, but I am afraid that the Amendment may go further than that. It may limit the effect


of Clause 75. With reluctance, we shall return to the matter in another place. We shall have this matter in tidier form and pursue it there, if necessary, although we shall not be there to do so.
This is most objectionable. Not only is the Bill almost entirely rewritten, but there are Amendments of this complicated character and the persistence of legislation by reference, even after the complaints that we have made about it. I feel embarrassed in criticising this Amendment when the Parliamentary Secretary is apparently trying to meet us, but the Amendment does not endear us any more towards the Bill. This provision will not make the Bill easier to comprehend, but it will be some comfort to those who heard the Parliamentary Secretary to know that he was endeavouring to be kind to us.
There will not be an opportunity in this House of looking at the matter again, but I hope that this is one of the provisions that will be reconsidered. We shall be considering Amendments to amend Amendments we agreed to in Committee. Large chunks of the Bill were taken out in Committee. We are shortly to consider new chunks to take the place of the chunks that they put in during the Committee. It is very difficult to be sure about this Amendment. I hope that by the time the Bill leaves another place the Parliamentary Secretary will be satisfied that what he is endeavouring to do is, in fact, done by this provision.

Mr. Dye: While I appreciate all that has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about the difficulties raised by these wards, I must confess that I do not know exactly what they mean. I have heard the Parliamentary Secretary explain their intention, and I can agree with the intention. I thank him for trying to meet us on the matter, in which I believe the Government are departing from their fundamental principle.
The main purpose of the Bill was to give the weight of attention to privately-owned slaughterhouses. I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary's intention here is to enable two local authorities, one of which may own a slaughterhouse adequate for the area, to refuse to license the building of new slaughter?

houses. If that is the intention of the Amendment it is good. New slaughterhouses have been opened in areas adjacent to boroughs with adequate facilities, and because of those new slaughterhouses those owned by the local authority have been working uneconomically. The local authority has to provide adequate inspection to cover the work done in its area, but when new slaughterhouses were opened in adjoining districts there were not enough inspectors.
The Government are making good some of the damage which they previously did and are now attempting to do good work. I wish they had not done the damage previously. I would like them to fortify the efficient local authority which is providing adequate slaughtering facilities and inspection as well. In so far as the Government are taking a small step to protect the properly-managed municipal slaughterhouse from uneconomical working they are taking a step in the right direction.

6.15 p.m.

Dr. Stross: Am I correct in my reading of the Amendment and in thinking that it does not differ very much from our own Amendment? The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that in Committee some of us gave an illustration of what we were afraid might happen.
My own local authority manages a city with a population of 270,000 people, and it had a very sad experience before the war. Although we were equipped with a very good
municipal slaughterhouse capable of providing for all our own needs, and, indeed, of exporting to London and elsewhere, we found that meat was being sent in from small abattoirs outside the city boundaries. We had no control over them and the meat entered in devious ways and was sold in the markets and shops. We were suspicious of the quality. It was bad meat, and we were sure that it was not inspected properly.
Am I right in assuming that an
authority like that of the city which I have
the honour to represent can be considered as of the type which provides facilities to neighbouring authorities? If the neighbouring authorities are satisfied that this is the case—it will be upon those outside authorities that the decision will rest whether that is so—they will be able to prevent the emergence of new


slaughterhouses because their needs are well provided for by the city to which I am referring. If that is the meaning of the Amendment, I shall be very happy to support it. The obligation is upon outside authorities, but, none the less, this is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Godber: Mr. Godber The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) seems anxious about the Amendment. The trouble is that I am not a member of his legal profession and so I cannot convince him, but I will do my best. I agree that the words are somewhat involved and difficult to follow. All that we are doing in these massive Amendments is trying to meet the criticisms which the hon. Member made. While I agree that it is difficult to follow, that is the reason.
In this Amendment, although it appears somewhat imposing at first sight, all we have done is that we have extended the provisions of paragraph (d) of Section 75 (1), which refer to abolishing or reducing slaughterhouse facilities, by adding the words:
or ought not to be increased, or are not required.
We are trying to add these two simple extra provisos. We are, therefore, somewhat extending the power of a local authority which wants a Section 75 resolution in force in relation to the slaughterhouse facilities provided by another authority. We are just providing it with the right that it can, if it has a Section 75 resolution approved, not merely reduce or abolish, but prevent an increase, or, in fact, prevent any slaughterhouse being constructed. That is what we are seeking to do, and I assure the hon. Gentleman, in spite of what he has said about other Amendments and the difficulties, that it is fairly clear when we examine it that this is the sole extent of the alteration we are making.
I cannot see that it can have any effect on other Sections of the principal Act. Naturally, in view of what the hon. Gentleman said, I will recheck that with pleasure, but, as far as I can see, it cannot have any serious effects of that kind. I give him the assurance that I have already looked at the matter fairly carefully and that I feel quite safe in commending it to the House. We have no intention other than merely to meet the points raised in the Committee.
I was most grateful for the comments of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye), who does not always give me bouquets, so that I am all the more pleased when I get them. I would say to him and to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) that the local authority in question must have a Section 75 resolution approved in order to take advantage of the alteration we are making. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central was quite right in his interpretation, in that it is for the outlying authority to have a Section 75 resolution based on the local authority abattoir in the central area. I hope that that explanation meets the point put to me by the hon. Members, and that the House will now be ready to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Willey: The point I was putting to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was that this imports the question of availability into these considerations. It is extraordinarily difficult on Report to consider these points, which really ought to be considered in Standing Committee. I will not endeavour to debate a Standing Committee point here, but I think it is unfortunate, and for that reason I think the Government ought to look at the matter again in another place.

Mr. Godber: In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has said, we will gladly do that, but I feel confident that in the form in which it now is it will meet the case.

Mr. Robens: May I ask the hon. Gentleman what is the significance of the change in these words in the Amendment, as compared with the words in paragraph (d) in Section 75 (1) of the principal Act? Section 75 (1, b) refers to
adequate alternative slaughterhouse facilities
and the Amendment speaks of
the availability of slaughterhouse facilities".
Would that mean that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has in mind the fact that there may be in existence adequate alternative slaughterhouse facilities, but that those facilities may not be available to a neighbouring local authority? Is that the reason why, in his Amendment, he speaks of the availability of slaughterhouse facilities? If that is not the correct interpretation, why did the Joint Parliamentary Secretary find it necessary to


depart to that extent in these words from what appeared in Section 75 (1) of the principal Act?

Mr. Godber: As the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) has rightly assumed, the word "availability" makes it more clear that there must be slaughterhouse facilities actually available to an adjoining authority.

Mr. Robens: Surplus capacity?

Mr. Godber: Surplus capacity is, in fact, what it must be. As to whether "adequate" or "availability" is the most appropriate word, that is a matter that I leave to the legal gentlemen, hut, as far as I can see, this question of availability covers that point. Obviously, if the facilities were not adequate, then certainly there would not be the availability for the neighbouring authorities to use them. It is a rather fine point, and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having raised it, and, though that is, in fact, what is the intention here, I shall be glad to look at it again.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In line 18, at end insert:

(4) Without prejudice to the last foregoing subsection, in the said section seventy-five, for paragraph (b) of subsection (1) (which authorises the passing of a resolution under that section where the local authority are of opinion that slaughterhouse facilities in their district ought to be abolished or reduced having regard to such facilities provided by another authority) there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
(b) are of the opinion that, having regard to the availability of slaughterhouse facilities provided by another authority, slaughterhouse facilities within their district ought to be abolished or reduced, or ought not to be increased, or are not required";
and, accordingly, after the word "and", in the first place where it occurs in the said subsection (1) there shall be inserted the words "any such resolution may also provide".—[Mr. Godber.]

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 3, to leave out lines 19 to 22.
This is really a paving Amendment, providing for something that we are to do in Clause 2.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 3, line 26, after "particulars", to insert:
of all premises to which the licence or application relates".

Perhaps it would be convenient to consider with this Amendment the one to line 31, at the end to insert:
Provided that such licences, applications, records, and information shall contain a description of the premises and the area of the lairage, slaughterhall, cooling room and other essential particulars clearly to identify the whole of the premises to which they relate.
in the name of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), which deals with a very similar point.

Mr. Speaker: They cover the same matter, and, if the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) agrees, certainly.

Mr. Willey: I quite agree, Sir.

Mr. Godber: By this Amendment we seek to meet, in part at least, the point which the hon. Member has in mind here. We have sought more particularly to make sure that the description shall be of all premises to which the licence or application relates. The hon. Member for Sunderland, North, in his Amendment, seeks to go wider. We have looked at it most carefully, but we feel that this was as far as it is necessary to go in cases of this sort, provided that we make quite clear what is intended, and that the particulars should be, to that extent, more precise than they are in the Bill at present.
To cover the whole of the premises to which reference is made, we felt that that was all that was necessary, and it is for that reason that we ask the House to accept this Amendment. It was because of the hon. Member's suggestion that something should be done that we have tried to meet this point, and I hope he will feel that we have gone far enough in that respect.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Wiley: We are obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary for going part of the way to meet us. Of course, he cannot assume that we think he has gone sufficiently far, because we have left our Amendment on the Notice Paper. I claim no particular proprietary right in my Amendment and say at once that the wording is taken from the Report of the inter-departmental Committee, which said, in paragraph 141:
Existing legislation does not prescribe a statutory form of licence for issue to the occupier of a slaughterhouse. We recommend


that this should be done in the new legislation and that the form of licence should contain a description of the premises and the area of the lairage, slaughterhall, cooling room and other essential particulars clearly to identify the whole of the premises to which the licence relates. These particulars should also be recorded by the local authority in a register of licensed slaughterhouses.
The burden is on the Parliamentary Secretary, not on me and my hon.
Friends. All we did was to call his attention to what his own interdepartmental Committee had recommended. On a technical matter such as this I should have thought that we had every reason to make such an Amendment.
We are much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for going so far to meet us, but he has not discharged the obligation placed upon him by the Report. We would all agree that unless there are any real technical difficulties, of the two Amendments, that in my name is preferable. It is supported by the inter-departmental Committee's Report. To say that the Government have gone as far as they can and would like to have gone further, but there are practical reasons why they could not, is not good enough. The hon. Gentleman should tell us why the particulars we suggest should not be provided. I confess at once to an ulterior motive; we want these particulars to be widely known.

Mr. Godber: It always gladdens my heart to find the hon. Member calling the Report of the inter-departmental Committee in aid after the rather unkind strictures we had from him, both in relation to the Report and the gentlemen who made it. It is rather interesting that he is always astute enough to call it in aid when it suits him.

Mr. Willey: The hon. Gentleman knows that I recognised the technical expertise of the Committee. What I complained about was the Government placing upon the Committee responsibilities which ought to be left on the shoulders of the Government, in other words, questions of policy.

Mr. Godber: That is quite true and the hon. Member on occasion talked about a "slavish following". This is a minor point and we felt that this way of dealing with it was probably adequate. I agree

that we do not go quite so far as the hon. Member, but there is a later Amendment in his name on the Notice Paper which takes up one of the points and refers to the making of records. Of course, I cannot anticipate what will happen to that Amendment when we come to it, but if so be that it is accepted it will deal with that part of the matter.
We do not want to make this too elaborate and difficult. We feel that these particulars, provided they are sufficiently clear to identify the premises, are all that is required. We do not want to have extremely elaborate particulars laid down. We felt this was a fair and reasonable way in which to meet the point made by the hon. Member. As he has said, it is not a very large matter one way or the other. We have accepted that there was some merit in the case he put forward and have sought to meet it to some extent. I do not think that it would be right to make these particulars in the detail which he suggests. That would require a lot of effort. Clearly, to identify the premises is the main point at issue. I hope, therefore, that the House will be willing to accept the Amendment I have moved in place of that in the name of the hon. Member.

Mr. Robens: As we move through this Clause we tend to forget what we are doing in relation to Clause 1 as a whole, because we are dealing in great detail with Amendments to small parts of the Clause. You, Mr. Speaker, have had to peruse this Notice Paper. You will have had to refer to the Bill, but it might be for the convenience of the House if I remind hon. Members that in Clause 1 we are repealing Section 64 of the principal Act. We must look at Section 64 of that Act to see what we are repealing and then examine some of these Amendments, and this Amendment, in particular.
That Section deals with restriction on licences for new slaughterhouses. I shall not quote the whole of it. It prevents any slaughterhouse being opened except with the consent of the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary said that in his Amendment he was meeting all we said in the Standing Committee, but I wish to put this to him. Having decided to repeal Section 64 we have now to rely entirely on the new Clause we are putting into this Bill, by a very large number


of Amendments, to provide under what circumstances any slaughterhouse shall be opened. The Parliamentary Secretary chided my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) about relying on the inter-departmental Committee's Report when it suited him. The answer to that is that it is highly important for the Minister to have a proper record of all details in relation to slaughterhouses which are to be opened under the provisions of this Bill and which would not be permitted to be opened under Section 64 of the principal Act.
The inter-departmental Committee was a Committee of experts. Having examined all the circumstances as to the conditions under which new slaughterhouses should be opened, they said that the particulars included in the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend should be in the licence. Section 64 of the principal Act has been discussed in the House and has been the basis on which at one time the House decided that slaughterhouses should or should not be opened. Having dismissed that Section and decided to write something new into the provisions for the opening of slaughterhouses, who are we to say to an expert Committee, which felt it highly essential to the proper provision of slaughterhouses, taking into account not only the welfare of the animals to be slaughtered, but also public health, that the particulars that that Committee thought necessary should be excluded?
For the sake of a few extra lines of print, and perhaps a little more trouble on the part of those who have to deal with the licences, why should we not have in the archives of the Ministry all this detailed information, without which it is quite impossible to provide a proper slaughterhouse programme when the purposes of the Bill have been concluded? It is not really sufficient for the hon. Gentleman to suggest the wording in his Amendment. It is important that we should have in the licence the information dealt with in great detail in the Amendment we put forward, which, to save the time of the House, I shall not bother to read.
If the Parliamentary Secretary says that the inter-departmental Committee, experts though its members may have been, was wasting its time in coming to

this conclusion, I would understand that; but the hon. Gentleman has not said that. He has not said that this information is of no use to him or to the Ministry as a Department of State. He merely says that these words are adequate for the purpose. They may be adequate for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, but we have to remember that the Government and we on this side are committed to a fairly generally agreed policy on slaughterhouses and that this is only a move towards the final decision on slaughterhouses which will have to be taken in due course, perhaps a few years hence.
What prevents the Parliamentary Secretary from adopting the recommendation of the inter-departmental Committee concerning these licences? How can he say that the words which he proposes are adequate in view of the fact that what the Clause does is to wipe out Section 64 of the principal Act, which lays down the conditions under which slaughterhouses shall be opened?
It seems to me that when we wipe out a Section of that character, we are providing, instead, quite different conditions for the opening of slaughterhouses. We ought to take into consideration all the knowledge and information that is available and, in my view, the information and recommendation from the interdepartmental Committee was the best available. That is why my hon. Friend put down the Amendment and I am a little surprised that the Parliamentary Secretary has not accepted it. We shall have to press this one, because we propose, as far as we are able, to put the inter-departmental Committee recommendations into the Bill.

Mr. Godber: I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) feels so strongly that we are not going far enough for him. I should, perhaps, clarify the position concerning Section 64 of the 1955 Act. At an earlier stage today, my right hon. Friend reminded the House that Section 64 applied only to new slaughterhouses and not to any which had licences pre-war. It was, therefore, of limited application. I agree that it could prevent any widespread development, but it covers few indeed of the slaughterhouses that are operating today. Therefore, the fact that we are


deleting Section 64 does not have as much force as the right hon. Gentleman claims.
In relation to the specific point, however, although I certainly do not want to labour it, I felt that there was little between us. We have tried to meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite to some extent. I am advised that the existing wording of the Clause is already sufficiently wide to permit regulations to require the particulars which the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) wants us to provide. The description of these particulars is not, perhaps, as full as the inter-departmental Committee recommended, but so long as the powers and intentions are clear from the Bill the details can be left to the regulations themselves.
It would be wrong to write the details into the Bill more specifically than we have sought to do in our Amendment, which clearly ties the licence to the premises. Our feeling was that that was sufficient and that the regulations can then provide for any further particulars as the Minister at the time may think fit. He can state what actual detailed particulars he wants. That sort of thing is better left for the regulations than written into the Bill. The normal procedure is to provide for matters of detail in the regulations rather than in the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
I give the House the assurance that it is our desire to ensure that adequate provision is made in the regulations to see that we get all the information in that respect that we require. I should have thought that with this assurance, the right hon. Gentleman might feel that what we have done takes the matter far enough. Later, we shall come to Clause 3, by which the reports that come in from local areas will come in to the Ministry and we shall have fairly substantial information from this source. Taking everything together, our stand is not unreasonable. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman might feel disposed to accept our Amendment.

Mr. Willey: To refer to my Amendment in line 31, I am in the sorry position that the more helpful the Parliamentary Secretary endeavours to appear the more depressed I become, because

the limits of his helpfulness are so narrow. When we discussed the earlier matter in which, apparently, he was trying to be helpful, I pointed out that he had placed me in difficulty and was causing a lot of work for lawyers. Now, the hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to do something quite simple and straightforward. While, however, he is willing to make a little advance, he is not prepared to do something which is not without difficulty. No obscurantist legislation by reference is demanded. Our Amendment defines clearly and succinctly what information we think should be provided.
Nobody can deny that our proposal is what the inter-departmental Committee—the experts—thought should be provided. The last argument by the Parliamentary Secretary was that the Minister can make regulations to provide for these details anyway; but the hon. Gentleman cannot expect the House to leave it at that. If he was prepared to do this anyway, he would have indicated that he would accept my Amendment.
This is a matter of substance and I am glad that the Minister has come back just at the appropriate time. As I complained with force some time ago, all the information regarding slaughterhouses is at the Ministry. We must not forget that the Ministry was responsible for slaughtering during the wartime years and during the post-war years until 1954. There ought to be a repository of information about slaughterhouses there. It is for that reason that we express indignation about the Government's present action. When I said that I had an ulterior motive in putting forward the Amendment, it was that people must know the appalling state of our slaughterhouses. Our proposal is one of the ways in which people will get to know.
What is equally important is that this action is to be taken by public officials. Public officials have consciences just as much as anyone else. If in the compilation and preparation of such records they realise what the condition of slaughterhouses is, so much the quicker will we get some reform.
I regret having to say this, because the Parliamentary Secretary, in his limited way, is trying to be helpful, but I regard his action with suspicion. There is some covering up here. This has been


behind the whole of our consideration of the Bill. I remember saying on Second Reading that I would challenge any newspaper to expose the condition of our slaughterhouses. All we are asking is that these particulars which the inter-departmental Committee
said should be made available, shall be made available. Why cannot the Parliamentary Secretary agree and advise his hon. Friends that our Amendment is a right and proper Amendment which ought to be accepted.

Dr. Stross: At first sight, we do not seem to be widely divided on this matter and I therefore urge the Minister to whisper to his hon. Friend to give way. If I put it in this way it is because we recognise that the Minister was not present during the Committee stage, that the Parliamentary Secretary listened to everything said and that between us there was a great deal of interchange of views on the matter.
We cannot possibly do something which we should all like to do—put the whole matter on the best possible footing—unless we obtain all possible information and, having obtained it, sift it, classify it and make it clear to everyone. I have never known a Government prepared to take the initiative to rectify anything which is wrong; they wait until they are pushed into action by public opinion. Because of that we have our great voluntary organisations and individual citizens who make a clamour about things which are wrong and pursue an objective which they think ought to be pursued by the Government.
Without this information codified and analysed, I do not see how we can be sure to solve the problem adequately or on correct lines. The information for which we ask would be of tremendous value if we are to move forward to further legislation. I beg the Minister not to be afraid to give us the Amendment. It does not seem far from that which is proffered to us, but there is a separation in principle and we have a right to press for our Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: The next two Amendments are those in line 28 and in line 31. Is it possible for the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to agree

to take them together? It would save time.

Mr. Willey: I am sure that that would be for the convenience of the House, Sir.

Mr. Robens: On a point of order. When you put the Question on the Amendment in page 3, line 26, Mr. Speaker, we said, "No". You went on to the point about the next two Amendments, but our intention was to vote against the Amendment in line 26. I said, "No" on two occasions and I thought that you intended to collect the voices. We should then not discuss the second Amendment in page 3, line 31, but merely take a Division on it.

Mr. Speaker: I had not intended to select the second Amendment, in line 31.

Mr. Robens: We have already discussed it.

Mr. Speaker: I allowed a discussion on it to see which Amendment the House preferred, but I thought they were alternatives.

Mr. Robens: May I put the position more clearly? When you put the Question on the Amendment in line 26, we said "No". Either you did not hear, or you did not collect the voices. Sir. The next two Amendments are those which you have asked my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to agree to take together. We shall agree to that. They need not take much time. Then we come to the second Amendment, in line 31, which we have already discussed, and the intention was to divide upon it. Or would you prefer us to take two Divisions together—one, from our point of view, against the Amendment in line 26, and one for the insertion of those words in line 31?.

Mr. Speaker: I heard both the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) and the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) say "No", but they said it with a smile on their faces. Perhaps the smile came from an inward glow of happiness. To put the matter in order, I will put the Question again.
Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 229, Noes 194.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 3, line 28, after "records", to insert:
of all saughterhouse licences granted by them, including the particulars aforesaid".
It would probably meet the convenience of the House if this and the next Amendment in line 31 were taken together.
These two Amendments are designed to improve the Bill, and I hope that

they will be accepted by the Government. We are now dealing with the power of the Minister to make regulations to require local authorities to keep records; we are improving the definition of such records, and we are also making provision by means of the second Amendment that a local authority should make such records available at reasonable hours and without charge.
As we have already indicated, we believe that the information relating to slaughterhouses should be made widely available, and I hope that, at any rate in this respect, we shall not be frustrated by the Government, but that they will indicate that they are prepared to accept these Amendments.

Mr. David Jones: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Godber: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I think he is a little ungracious in what he has said about our other Amendments. We have tried to meet him, and then when he and his hon. Friends vote against us it is somewhat discouraging to a Government who seek to meet the Opposition half way. Nevertheless, we on these benches are very generous; we always seek to assist hon. Members opposite in any way that we possibly can. I think that these two Amendments might well be helpful in the Bill.

Division No. 92.]
AYES
[7.8 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Ledger, R. J.


Albu, A. H.
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Finch, H. J.
Lindgren, G. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Fletcher, Eric
Logan, D. G.


Balfour, A.
Forman, J. C.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary


Benson, Sir George
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McCann, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
MacColl, J. E.


Blackburn, F.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McGhee, H. G.


Boardman, H.
Grey, C. F.
McInnes, J.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Griffiths. Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hale, Leslie
McLeavy, Frank


Bowles, F. G.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Boyd, T. C.
Hamilton, W. W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hannan, W.
Mahon, Simon


Brockway, A. F.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mainwaring, W. H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hastings, S.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hayman, F. H.
Mann, Mrs. Jean


Burke, W. A.
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Marquand, R. Hon. H. A.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Herbison, Miss M.
Mason, Roy


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Holman, P.
Mitchison, G. R.


Carmichael, J.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Monslow, W.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Moody, A. S.


Champion, A. J.
Hoy, J. H.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Chapman, W. D.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mort, D. L.


Clunie, J.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Moss, R.


Coldrick, W.
Hunter, A. E.
Moyle, A.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Cove, W. G.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Oliver, G. H.


Cronin, J. D.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Oram, A. E.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Orbach, M.


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn&amp;St.Pncs,S.)
Oswald, T.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Owen, W. J.


Davis, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Padley, W. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Deer, G.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Palmer, A. M. F.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Diamond, John
Kenyon, C.
Parkin, B. T.


Dodds, N. N.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Paton, John


Donnelly, D. L.
King, Dr. H. M.
Pearson, A.


Dye, S.
Lawson, G. M.
Peart, T. F.

For that reason, and without wishing to waste the time of the House, I would say that the Government will be happy to accept both of the Amendments.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 31, at end insert:
and each local authority shall make any such records as aforesaid or copies thereof available during reasonable hours at some convenient place or places in their district for inspection by any person without charge."—[Mr. Willey.]

Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 31, at end insert:
Provided that such licences, applications, records, and information shall contain a description of the premises and the area of the lairage, slaughterhall, cooling room and other essential particulars clearly to identify the whole of the premises to which they relate.—[Mr. Willey.]

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 192, Noes 227.

Pentland, N.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Weitzman, D.


Popplewell, E.
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Prentice, R. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wheeldon, W. E.


Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Steele, T.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Probert, A. R.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Willey, Frederick


Proctor, W. T.
Stones, W. (Consett)
Williams, David (Neath)


Rankin, John
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Redhead, E. C.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Reeves, J.
Sylvester, G. O.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Winterbottom, Richard


Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Woof, R. E.


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Thornton, E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Ross, William
Timmons, J.
Zilliacus, K.


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Tomney, F.



Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Viant, S. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Watkins, T. E.
Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Fisher, Nigel
Lambton, Viscount


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Alport, C. J. M.
Fort, R.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Arbuthnot, John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Leavey, J. A.


Armstrong, C. W.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Leburn, W. G.


Ashton, H.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Atkins, H. E.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Glover, D.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Balniel, Lord
Godber, J. B.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Barber, Anthony
Goodhart, Philip
Longden, Gilbert


Barlow, Sir John
Gower, H. R.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Barter, John
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr.R. (Nantwich)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Green, A.
McKibbin, Alan


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Grimond, J.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Bishop, F. P.
Gurden, Harold
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Black, G. W.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Body, R. F.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Bonham-Carter, Capt. M. R.
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maddan, Martin


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W.(Horncastle)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Braine, B. R.
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marshall, Douglas


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hay, John
Mathew, R.


Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Mawby, R. L.


Bryan, P.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Cary, Sir Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Channon, Sir Henry
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Holt, A. F.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Cooke, Robert
Hornby, R. P.
Nicholls, Harmar


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Horobin, Sir Ian
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th,E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Oakshot, H. D.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Howard, John (Test)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim(Co. Antrim, N.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Cunningham, Knox
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Osborne, C.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh,S.)
Page, R. G.


Dance, J. C. G.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark(E'b'gh, W.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Davidson, Viscountess
Hyde, Montgomery
Partridge, E.


Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Peel, W. J.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Iremonger, T. L.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Deedes, W. F.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pitman, I. J.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


du cann, E. D. L.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Powell, J. Enoch


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Duncan, Sir James
Keegan, D.
Ramsden, J. E.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Rawlinson, Peter


Elliott,R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Redmayne, M.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kershaw, J. A.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Errington, Sir Eric
Kimball, M.
Renton, D. L. M.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kirk, P. M.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Finlay, Graeme
Lagden, G. W.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)







Robertson, Sir David
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Teeling, W.
Wall, Patrick


Russell, R. S.
Temple, John M.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Sharples, R. C.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Webbe, Sir H.


Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Speir, R. M.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wood, Hon. R.


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Vane, W. M. F.
Woollam, John Victor


Storey, S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.



Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Vickers, Miss Joan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Studholme, Sir Henry
Wade, D. W.
Mr. Brooman-White and


Summers, Sir Spencer
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Mr. Chichester-Clark.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 3, line 31, at the end to insert:
(6) Before making any construction regulations the Minister shall consult with such organisations as appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by the regulations and such interests shall include the interests of the public generally in relation to slaughterhouses and related matters, of persons carrying on slaughterhouse trade or business, of local authorities of public health inspectors, of veterinary surgeons, of animal welfare societies, of workers employed in slaughterhouses and of producers of livestock.
We now touch upon a matter which had a good deal of attention in Standing Committee, that is to say, the construction regulations, which, after all, are the keystone of this part of the Bill. The Government's case is that, if effective regulations are made under this part of the Bill, they will lead to a radical improvement of our slaughterhouses. We do not share that optimism. We have indicated throughout that we believe that the approach which Viscount Tenby declared that the Government would take was the right one, and we very much regret that the Government are not taking those steps now. But, be that as it may, the effectiveness of this part of the Bill depends upon the construction regulations.
We had the good fortune, and we thank the Government for affording us the opportunity, to see the draft construction regulations during our consideration of the Bill. Although that brought in its train a good deal of trouble for the Government, I think they should be congratulated for having the courage to indicate what they had in mind in that way.
Although I do not wish to refer
to the regulations in detail. I want to make one broad point about them. We have made is clear that we do not regard these regulations as sufficient. We think that they are open to a good deal of evasion. I mention this because it is a very good

reason for expressly providing for consultation. Again, I concede that I do not think that the Government are allergic to consultation. I agree at once that there has been a reference to the Food Hygiene Advisory Council. But, having seen what the Government had in mind, we are particularly anxious to provide by legislation for consultation with the representative bodies affected.
Any hon. Member in the Standing Committee would agree that we made out our case that the regulations are inadequate. That being so, as we are unable to impress our views upon the Government, I hope that hon. Members will also agree with us when we suggest that another course to take is to place upon the Government the obligation of consultation with the interested parties. If we cannot persuade the Government radically to amend the Bill, and if we cannot obtain from them satisfactory assurances that they will consider these regulations again, then, surely, the course to take is to impose an obligation for consultation upon the Government.
Even if the Government think that we have been unduly critical, we have only been speaking up for the public. I hope that they accept the fact that, in their own interests, they ought to provide for such consultation, at any rate to satisfy the public that they are endeavouring to do everything possible.
Apart from these considerations, I should like to put before the House this broad consideration. I make no apology for emphasising this point. It is a point that I invariably take on Bills of this kind. We have continually to consider the way in which our complex democracy is developing at the moment. We are discussing regulations of great importance. We know that there is provision for supervision by the House, but there is no provision for amendment of the regulations. I do not think that


anyone regards this as a satisfactory form of legislation. All sorts of ways have been suggested in which it could be improved, but those of us who work in this workshop know that it is extraordinarily difficult ourselves to do much about indirect legislation. This bears particularly upon matters such as this, when we make regulations about something which will be of considerable public importance. We must also frankly confess that this Measure will drastically affect private interests.
What do the Government suggest we should do? Do they suggest that we should leave the matter to the bureaucrats and say that Parliament, through the procedure with regard to regulations, should cast an eye upon it? I do not think that we can accept this proposal as sufficient. I congratulate the Minister's Department on generally being forthcoming. But we have to accept the fact that if we resort to indirect legislation on matters such as this, then we should provide for consultation. The Minister can say, "I have had consultations. I have sought the advice of the council. Is not that enough?" I would say to him that it is not enough. As the Legislature, we ought to make express provision for consultation with the interested and the affected parties.
When we discussed consultation in the Committee—and I think there was a favourable climate in Committee towards consultation—the point was occasionally made about the difficulty of ensuring that we should provide for comprehensive consultation. Indeed, I remember that one of our Amendments was criticised because we did not make our proposals sufficiently comprehensive. We have sought to make this Amendment as comprehensive as we can. We have sought out all the bodies which we believe will be affected or who will or ought to have an interest in these construction regulations. If by inadvertence we have omitted somebody, then we apologise, and we would readily accede to a suggestion that our proposal should be made more comprehensive.
I now want to deal with another objection that might be made. I know Parkinson's Law about committees. It may be said, "If you ask for consultation on this wide scale, you will not get an effective committee." Frankly, we are

not seeking to find an effective committee in that sense. That is not the purpose
of consultations such as we are trying to provide by the Amendment. We are not suggesting that by consultation a body such as this should draw up the construction regulations. We place that responsibility upon the Minister, very properly. We say that before making the regulations there should be consultation.
It is right and proper that there should be consultation for these two reasons. First, I think it is proper that the Minister, if he takes what we regard as a narrow view—and we are reasonably well-informed on slaughterhouse matters—and if he sincerely believes that he can go no further, then he, in his own interests, should undertake to have consultations to ascertain whether it is possible to go further. The Parliamentary Secretary, during our proceedings in Standing Committee, protested that he wished to seek moderate concentration through these means. Very well. If this is his chosen instrument, then he should have no objection to trying to make it more effective. If he believes that it cannot be made more effective, then it should be tested out by consulting the informed representative bodies to see whether they can help him.
The second reason, which I again emphasise, is one of equal importance. It is that the House should seek out ways for providing for wider participation in the legislation that we enforce and inflict upon other people. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated his assent when I said that he wishes this to be his chosen instrument towards moderate concentration. If his head was wagging sincerely, he knows quite well his proposal means an interference with people's private rights, in the sense that the way in which they conduct slaughtering will be controlled. I know, in view of the statements recently made by the Leader of the House, that the Parliamentary Secretary will feel disturbed if I should call attention to that point. Even if it be a slow movement—and I concede that this Bill would be a slow movement—any movement towards moderate concentration will be against the current political philosophy of the Leader of the House.
But conceding that point and agreeing with it, I should have thought that there


is all the more reason for saying that if we are to take steps in the public interest to improve slaughterhouse conditions and if we are to affect the way in which people can open new slaughterhouses, then we ought to be doubly sure that we are paying every proper attention to people's legitimate private interests. Those private interests nowadays are expressed through representative bodies.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will agree to accept the burden of consultation. I have said many times before that many of those who advise him sincerely think that—and this is a legitimate bureaucratic point of view—proposals of this sort lead to untidy indirect legislation. I do not think it does. If we provide for such consultations, more often than not we avoid troubles which we inadvertently make for ourselves otherwise. Therefore, if for no good positive reason, I hope that for that negative reason and in his own self-defence the Minister will agree to accept the Amendment.
7.30 p.m.
I have no particular quarrel with the right hon. Gentleman or his Department. They have a good record of accepting consultation. I hope, however, that having been provided with this opportunity they will extend it a little further. I should have thought that all our discussions on these draft regulations in Standing Committee confirm that it would be far better if the Government gave an express undertaking and accepted the legislative obligation in future to consult as widely as possible before laying any such regulations before the House.

Mr. Darling: I beg to second the Amendment.
One of the very good reasons for insisting on consultation concerning the regulations for the construction of abattoirs and slaughterhouses is that if there is consultation with the trade which provides the equipment for slaughterhouses we can get a high degree of standardisation of efficient equipment, which would help to cut down the costs both of the erection of slaughterhouses of the type and standard that we want and also of maintenance.
I can give an illustration by referring to proposals which came up in Committee for a standardised type or types of stunning pens, which are part of the con?

structional equipment of slaughterhouses. The need for consultation has been clearly brought out. In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Ministry had had, or was having, consultation with the trade on this matter. We took that to mean that consultations were taking place about the standardised equipment. My information, however, suggests that the Parliamentary Secretary misled us. This is of importance, because the view given to me by manufacturers illustrates the need for the Amendment.
What happened, I understand, was that the manufacturers, who want to provide just one or two standardised types, were asked to come to the Ministry and discuss the matter with representatives of the meat traders, with the Ministry representatives sitting in the middle. I do not know whether it was to the surprise of the Ministry representatives that both the manufacturers and meat traders agreed that there should be one or two standard types of equipment approved by the Ministry. In spite, however, of the joint representations on both sides in this so-called consultation, the Ministry has refused to accept the proposal that one or two standard types of stunning pen should be approved by him and that all other types should not be allowed to go into slaughterhouses.
The point concerning consultation is borne out by the view expressed by one of the manufacturers, who writes:
You will. I am sure, appreciate that in the absence of Ministry approval, there is no basis on which either the trade can give advice to their members or that manufacturers can usefully provide for an anticipated demand for equipment. We cannot simultaneously deal with a thousand or more local authorities in England and Wales whose ideas and standards on this particular subject will be dictated by the experience, whims, or prejudices of individuals in each case.
Here is a manufacturer—I believe that all the equipment manufacturers share this view—who says that standardised equipment for abattoirs should be approved by the Ministry after consultation with the Ministry and that this would lead to economies in construction and in operation and would generally provide the efficiency of service that we all want. In the absence of proper consultation with the Ministry, however, this cannot be achieved.
If each person in the business can go to manufacturers and try to order


any kind of equipment he wants, without working to the types approved by the Ministry, we will get far too much competition. Far too many types will be produced. There will not be the advantages of large-scale production, standardisation, and so on. In these circumstances, it is essential that the Ministry should be called upon to consult everybody engaged in the business so that we can get the slaughterhouses that we want under proper construction regulations.
In the construction regulations, we must have reference to the equipment that goes into the slaughterhouses, including stunning pens. I regret that the Parliamentary Secretary misled the Committee on this matter. I understand that the manufacturers and the trade want Ministerially-approved stunning pens to be specified in the regulations, but that it is only the stubbornness of the Ministry which prevents that. If I am wrong, I shall apologise, but that is what I am told by the manufacturers. This shows the need for the fullest consultation so that the regulations which emerge and are given the force of law when the Bill becomes an Act will be satisfactory in every way, after consultation.

Sir James Duncan: There is an old negro song about the Missouri River which contains the words:
Old man river, that old man river, he just keeps flowing along.

Mr. Darling: It is "rolling along".

Sir J. Duncan: After 24 sittings of the Standing Committee, the whole of this afternoon and the prospect of what is to happen in the Agriculture Bill Standing Committee, I shall christen the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) "Old Man River". I do not know whether the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) has ever analysed the water of the Missouri River. I suppose that it consists of a little part of good water and a lot of bad water.

Mr. Darling: It is the Mississippi, not the Missouri River.

Sir J. Duncan: If it is anything like the Amendment, the Mississippi water must be poor. This Amendment is typical——

Mr. Hayman: Will the hon. Member give way?

Sir J. Duncan: No.

Mr. Hayman: The hon Member's Amendments are rather bad.

Sir J. Duncan: I did not put any down.
If the Amendment were to become law, how would the Minister select persons representative of interests substantially affected by the regulations, such interests including those of the public generally in relation to slaughterhouses? How on earth will the Minister collect one or a number of persons who will represent the public? The suggestion is a stupid one. I see the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) nodding his head in agreement with me——

Mr. Willey: I do not want to interrupt more than I am bound to do, but, as the hon. Gentleman has referred to my nodding head, I must make it clear that I was disagreeing with him. This is standard form. The Minister already does it in other respects.

Sir J. Duncan: I have not seen those words in any previous Act. I will willingly withdraw what I have said if the hon. Gentleman can point to any Act in which those words appear.
The Amendment fails on another ground, because it is not comprehensive, and if the hon. Gentleman is trying to be comprehensive, let him be so. In law, the trouble is that when a number of interests are specified we may well leave out an interest which should be consulted, and there the Minister might be hampered. I will take the case of slaughterhouse machinery. The hon. Gentleman has put these words in his Amendment—"persons carrying on slaughterhouse trade or business". This means the carrying on of slaughterhouse trade, not the construction of slaughterhouses. As I read ordinary English as a layman, that does not mean what the hon. Gentleman has tried to make it mean. I may be wrong, but I am trying to understand English, and the hon. Gentleman has put down those words.

Mr. Darling: Mr. Darling rose——

Sir J. Duncan: No, let me try to say what I mean. To my lay mind that means a private person or a local authority carrying on the business of a slaughterhouse, not a private person who is an expert in the constructional


machinery which will go into the slaughterhouse. For those three reasons, I think the Amendment is wrong and hope that it will be withdrawn.

Mr. Darling: Surely the manufacturers of the equipment are "interests substantially affected by the regulations".

Sir J. Duncan: Yes, but the Amendment states
… shall include the interests of the public generally …
Who is the Minister to select? I think that the Amendment is impossible and would be unworkable in practice. I am all in favour of consultation, and I believe that in the principal Act the Government have made every necessary provision for the widest possible consultation before the regulations are made.
Therefore, it is not necessary to put into the Bill any such words. In Clause 8 (1) there is provision for all regulations to come before Parliament, and if Parliament is not satisfied they can be prayed against and annulled. In that way, Parliament has the right, which it ought to have, and I believe that this is the satisfactory way of doing things instead of this welter of words which flows like "Old Man River".

Dr. Stross: I have listened with great interest to the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan). It is so refreshing to have him intervening, especially as he is in an excellent position to condescend to us on this subject. A Scotsman, enjoying an advanced
technique in his own country, with a guarantee that there will be the best possible action to get humane slaughter and 100 per cent. inspection of animals after slaughter, is able to come here and tell us that our efforts to try to do something to improve a Bill, which he knows is by no means as good in its provisions as the conditions enjoyed in Scotland, tells us, "You are not doing this the right way. It is no use. It is stupid."
7.45 p.m.
I think it would have been better not to have intervened. Had the hon. Gentleman really meant business, he should have encouraged us to go on struggling to get improvements in this English Bill. Amongst other things, the hon. Gentleman suggested that these words were of no use. To start with, he

spoke of the impossibility of defining "the interests of the public generally." I wonder if I can take him with me in suggesting that all of us represent the public generally. It is a generic term since every single member of the public, irrespective of his occupation, whether man, woman or child, is involved in the provisions of this Bill unless they are vegetarians, and even then they may indirectly be involved for they may be supplying stunning pens. So, by and large, all the public are involved.
We know what these words mean. We know that the public make certain demands, or would do so if they knew the true position. In this country, the public demand is, first, the maximum possible humane approach to the slaughter of animals. So it is our duty to do everything within our power to effect this, and therefore the construction regulations must make that possible. Surely that is a reasonable thing to say.
Then the public generally have an interest, in as much as they are consumers of meat. Therefore, they want to be certain of both ante-mortem and postmortem inspection. When we discussed these matters in Committee we heard some extraordinary views in the rare speeches made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. For example, I remember the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) poking fun at us because we suggested that there should be ante-mortem inspection. He did not think that veterinary science could possibly tell what was wrong with an animal while it was alive. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that veterinary surgeons exist only to inspect cattle after slaughter. He also explained that the trade was so arranged that it was a physical impossibility to get at the cattle to be inspected. That is not good enough, and the hon. Member for South Angus knows it is not so, because in Scotland these problems have been overcome as a result of long experience.
I come to the next point, namely, "persons carrying on slaughterhouse trade or business". Of course they ought to be consulted with reference to construction regulations. They are the people who, according to this Bill, if they are private owners of slaughterhouses will, in the main, have to find the capital, so they ought to have their say. By and large, all of us know the principle that will apply


to the regulations. According to the amount of money one has, according to the population one serves, one knows roughly what will have to be spent and how many persons will be served by that size of abattoir. The specimen plans are all available, and they have been published. There is a series of them at the back of the publication issued by the inter-departmental Committee, showing both cost and lay-out. That is the principle of it, but those interested in the trade should be consulted about detail.
With reference to local authorities, next specified in the Amendment, where this Bill is concerned the Minister must accept from those of us who have been in touch with local authorities throughout the country, and particularly our own local authorities, that the Bill is not popular. They think it is a bad Bill. We on this side of the House do not make any bones about it. However it may be improved in these somewhat superficial ways, it will still remain a bad Bill as compared with what it could have been had it been differently drafted and had a different approach been made originally. Local authorities naturally want to be consulted. The worse this Bill is, the more important becomes the quality of the regulations. If, added to a bad Bill we get poor regulations, without proper consultation, we shall be in very great difficulty indeed.
In the next group of words we ask that public health inspectors should be consulted. All of us who have attended to our work have received information that the public health inspectors are not at all happy about the situation today. We know that they would have a good deal of advice to give. Their duty is to protect public health. All those who spoke or listened in Committee, or had to discipline themselves not to speak—because we know that that is the case with hon. Members opposite; we should have had a much more interesting time if hon. Members opposite had been encouraged and allowed to speak, because many of them know as much as and more than we do on this subject—know that public health inspectors have a point of view, and a great deal of advice to give.
The Minister may well answer, "I have a great deal of advice available to me in my Department; indeed, I have people who are specially skilled in these matters of health." That may be true, but there

is a great deal of difference between the skilled advice obtainable in the Department and the skilled advice obtainable from the men who do the work in the field. They are always up against the new problems which arise each day, and they should be listened to.
As for consulting veterinary surgeons and animal welfare societies—to appear not to do so would not only be a slight upon those bodies but would be so unusual that I cannot believe that the Minister would say that he would not do so. Our animal welfare societies have a splendid tradition, which goes back for many years. In Committee, we received excellent advice from them when we were speaking of anaesthesia, or methods of electrical stunning. They have watched all these matters, and if we construct abattoirs and put in plant which will bring about carbon-dioxide anaesthesia we know that we must look to them for the advice that they can give, because they have been watching this process not only here but in other countries.
They know how successful it can be and what pitfalls to avoid. I shall not speak at length on these matters, because we discussed them exhaustively in Committee, but hon. Members will remember that if a mistake is made in grading pigs for slaughter by carbon-dioxide anaesthesia great distress can be caused to the animals. They shriek and come out bleeding from their mouths, and so on.
If it be accepted that we should take note of what these bodies say, and consult them, we are left only with the workers employed in slaughterhouses and the producers of livestock. Those who have to work in the premises will naturally be consulted, but that fact should be specified, as it is in the Amendment. Again, we have to criticise the workers in certain ways. We know that in using carbon-dioxide anaesthesia we should not use an excitable man to drive the pigs on to the conveyor belt, because he tends to overuse the electric goad, which distresses the pigs and causes them pain. We do not then achieve the required object.
The workers' organisations will be able to help in all sorts of directions. They can speak not only of humane slaughter, but of their personal attitudes towards


the business. I am sure that the producers of livestock, too, are as anxious as anyone that slaughtering should be humane and that animals should be caused as little distress as possible.
I strongly urge the Minister to accept this form of words. I am certain that his hon. Friend, who suggested that we were foolish, is mistaken, and that if he agrees to the Amendment he will improve the Bill.

Mr. Winterbottom: I shall not keep the House for very long. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) on one point—at any rate, he has spoken. We cannot say that many hon. Members opposite have felt inclined to make a contribution to the debate.
I want the Minister to accept the Amendment because of my experience in the butchering industry. I have been a member of three joint industrial councils dealing with the meat industry—retail meat, slaughtering, and the animal gut industry. We cannot say that discussion in those bodies is confined to wages and conditions of labour. Indeed, in a meeting of slaughtermen at a joint industrial council one hears more about the intimate details of their occupation than one would expect having regard to the agenda in front of them.
In the discussions that I have had with them, I have found them to be deeply concerned about what is happening in the slaughtering world. They have a point of view, and if that point of view is properly expressed to the Minister through the joint industrial council and the trade unions in which the men are organised it can make a great contribution to the well-being of the industry, from a point of view not only of health but of general efficiency, and it would be worth while using that advice in considering what regulations should be made when the Bill becomes an Act.
I wonder what would happen if someone experienced in the flaying of animals was able to put his point of view to the Minister, through his organisation. We criticised the bad flaying of animals when we were in Committee, and pointed out that we were losing at least £1 million per year in this respect. I can imagine that many of those engaged in flaying animals have a point of view of what is

required in slaughterhouses in order to ensure the efficient flaying of animals. After animals have been flayed many of the hides are so badly handled that they become almost valueless.
I can also imagine that many people working in the industry could tell the Minister a great deal about what is necessary in meat inspection. For the first dozen sittings of the Committee that problem dominated our proceedings. This proved that the problem of meat inspection should be looked into very closely. I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said that the Government approve of 100 per cent. meat inspection. But the Government also know that 100 per cent. meat inspection is impossible at the moment. The Amendment would ensure that the Minister is compelled to seek the opinions and advice of those sections of people enumerated in it which are concerned with the slaughtering of animals, from the point of view not only of health and welfare, but of the efficiency of the industry.
That is already done in part by the Minister, and I can see no reason why it should not be extended so as to be part and parcel of the regulations which will
affect the new slaughterhouses that we are hoping to see built. That is the answer to the hon. Member for South Angus, who said that this is unnecessary. In part, the Minister is doing it already, and we want it done as a whole. That is why we are pressing the Amendment, believing that if it is incorporated in the Bill, although it may be something which is being done for the first time, it will prove well worth while. Perhaps if this is done, the mind of the Minister may be influenced when he comes to make the regulations. I am sure that those who work in the industry can offer useful advice. They yield to none in their enthusiasm and interest in seeing that the regulations should be such as will ensure that all slaughterhouses will become efficient as soon as possible. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment. He believes in consultation, and we wish that to be included in the Bill.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Hayman: The opening words of our Amendment are:
Before making any construction regulations the Minister shall consult …


The hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) referred to opportunities open to hon. Members to pray against regulations and to get them annulled. I am sure that the number of occasions upon which such a Prayer has been successful are few.

Sir J. Duncan: I remember one successful occasion.

Mr. Hayman: I remember one about cheese.

Sir J. Duncan: There was one connected with public assistance regulations.

Mr. Hayman: At any rate, the hon. Gentleman will agree that the procedure is not often successful, and the average number of successes would be far less than one a year, perhaps less than one every three years.
The discussions on the Bill have shown that in spite of differences over detail, we are agreed that the slaughtering of animals should be carried out in the most humane way possible. The Committee stage discussions revealed that there are many new and novel methods of slaughtering, some of which have not been fully tested. I was shocked to learn that methods employed for many years in the slaughtering of pigs, which many of us thought were humane, are now open to doubt. It seems to me essential, therefore, that the Minister should consult on a matter of this kind with, say, a body like the University Federation of Animal Welfare, which carries out widespread investigations over Europe, is versed in all methods of slaughter and is in a position scientifically and professionally to assess their effects.
Some people may say, as did the hon. Member for South Angus, that it is unnecessary to specify any group of persons in the Bill. I do not agree. Recently, in this Palace of Westminster we had an example of a Minister causing confusion because he did not consult hon. Members about the working of the lift between the Library corridor and the Committee corridor. As a result, he has had to change the regulation that there should be no attendant on that lift in the mornings and has had to provide one because of inconvenience caused to his colleagues.

Mr. Winterbottom: May I call attention, Sir Gordon, to the fact that there are not 40 Members in the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): The hon. Member cannot do so at this time.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I cannot understand why the Minister will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. Hare: I have not said a word. I have just been listening. I think it a little hard to be accused of refusing to accept an Amendment before I have said a word.

Mr. Fernyhough: I assumed that when the hon. Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) intervened, he was speaking after consultation with the Minister——

Sir J. Duncan: Why?

Mr. Fernyhough: —because we know that during the Committee stage discussions hon. Members opposite followed, like sheep, every bit of advice given them by the Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary.

Sir J. Duncan: The hon. Gentleman is being most unjust. He seems to think that I have inside information, which I have not. He has no right to say that.

Mr. Fernyhough: Having witnessed during the Committee stage discussions how faithfully Members opposite sup-pored the Minister, I naturally anticipated that the same state of affairs would apply now and that they would merely echo the thoughts of the Minister.
When the right hon. Gentleman says that he has not rejected the Amendment, I hope we may take it that he will accept it. We know that the Minister will have consultations. It is unlikely that he, or any other Minister, would introduce regulations without first consulting those concerned. I cannot understand, therefore, what objection there can be to the Amendment. At one time it was claimed that the men in Whitehall knew best. But that is a long time ago. I do not think anybody subscribes to that idea now. Since we know that the Minister is bound to consult the interests concerned, all we ask is that that should be included in the regulations.
There will be an outlay of thousands of pounds on the provision of buildings wherein will work the men who have to do the job, and who know much more about what is desirable and necessary


than any civil servant. They are practical people and they are entitled to the best conditions and the most efficient arrangements for their work. It would be a travesty if such advice as they can tender is ignored. While we may have an assurance from the present Minister that he will consult particularly with the representative of the workers, the right hon. Gentleman cannot, of course, commit any future Minister. We want to be sure that every Minister will be committed, to this extent.
We have heard a lot today about consultations. It is a question of the two sides of an industry getting together to make the industry as efficient and productive as possible. Workers who will spend a quarter of their lives in a factory have as much right to be consulted as anybody else about its construction because they know what is necessary. I hope that the Minister will see fit to accept the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) said that the Bill was bad and unpopular, but that is because we have a bad and unpopular Government. This is an opportunity for the Government to redeem themselves by accepting a sensible and reasonable Amendment.

Mr. Hare: I have had the pleasure of discussing other subjects with the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Ferny-hough). I am delighted to have had from him tips on methods of political redemption.
We have had a long discussion on the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), and I have listened carefully to it. There is a good deal of agreement between the two sides of the House, and I would like to go some way to meet what I consider to be the main point raised by the Amendment. For reasons which I will give later, I do not think I can accept the Amendment in its present form.
What binds the two sides of the House together is that we agree that before regulations are made there shall be consultation. I think the hon. Member for Sunderland, North said that the Government were not allergic to consultation. That was a perfectly fair compliment.

Mr. Willey: I said the right hon. Gentleman and his Department.

Mr. Hare: I took the hon. Gentleman's word down, and he actually referred to the Government and not to my Department. Therefore, we agree upon that. We always intended to consult. The draft regulations which were published
last year were presented for consultation. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) outlined the number of organisations and bodies that he thought should be consulted; every one of those bodies was consulted when the draft regulations were prepared.
I wonder whether hon. Members have missed the point that consultation is specifically provided for under the Food and Drugs Act, 1955? Therefore, consultation is a statutory obligation if regulations are made under that Act. The debate has brought out the point that construction regulations can be made under the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954. Under that Act it is not specifically stated that consultations shall take place, and that is why the debate, from my point of view, has been useful in that it justifies my putting down an Amendment, in Clause 7, page 12, of the Bill, to put right the omission in the Slaughter of Animals (Amendment) Act, 1954, regarding consultation. I shall be moving it, because I thought it fitted what we are doing in the Bill. It will make consultation obligatory if regulations for construction are made under that Act. The Government of the day were not specifically told that they should consult. My Amendment will deal with that possibility should it ever arise.
I cannot go along with the hon. Member for Sunderland, North and other hon. Members when they wish to spell out in detail all the possible interests which should be consulted. I think the hon. Gentleman gave his argument away when he said, "If we have left anybody out, of course, we apologise". That is the whole difficulty. I happen to represent the Government at the moment, and I have not the joys of irresponsibility which the Opposition have. It is very serious if the Government leave out anybody, and it is no use apologising. It is difficult to be sure that we have not left out specific people, so it is wiser to have a general power of consultation. That is what we propose.

Mr. Willey: That is the problem which faces the Government, but they must run


the risk. The various interests have their representative bodies nowadays.

Mr. Hare: By his own words the hon. Gentleman admitted the difficulties. I assure the House that all these bodies are, and will be, consulted. If we tried to write them down in detail, we would be bound to get into trouble. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) was right when he said it was difficult for a Minister to include by name every body which should be consulted.
I hope what I have said will encourage the hon. Member for Sunderland, North to withdraw his Amendment. I have tabled an Amendment to Clause 7 which will provide for filling the gap in the 1954 Act. I hope that he will be reasonable enough to forget his own argument in respect of my Amendment. I do not want to specify the actual organisations.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Dye: While it is clearly the intention of the Minister to make consultations, his argument in resisting the Amendment was weak. He said that although organisations should be consulted there might be some which were not included. The Amendment merely says:
and such interests shall include".
It does not prohibit the Minister from consulting interests not specified in the Bill. We are concerned that before making regulations he should have the power by Statute to make these consultations.
There are still many questions about the construction and working of slaughterhouses on which there are doubts. If by having consultations with such representatives as are mentioned in the Amendment the Minister can at an early stage bring out and resolve some of the doubt which exists, it will be all to the good. We have had mentioned in our discussions today problems on which the Minister and others still have grave doubts.
For instance, representatives of animal welfare societies are not yet satisfied that the methods for the instantaneous stunning of animals are effective or are even being carried out, whereas an earlier Act of Parliament lays down that the effect must be instantaneous. The latest advice which
the Minister has given on this subject indicates that if, in the case of the electrical stunning of animals, the intruments are held in position for ten

seconds, or for seven seconds in some other cases, that is sufficient, but that is not instantaneous, and there are still grave doubts about using electrical stunning instruments on sheep.
The discussions which have taken place with the Minister and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and others have not cleared up these matters. It would be a matter of very grave concern if we allowed instruments to be used for the instantaneous stunning of animals which were not proving successful, and if it went on, not only would it necessitate consultation with representatives of these societies, but those representatives would have the facilities for a greater study of these problems in the actual slaughterhouses, which many of them do not get today.
I hope the Minister will take a broader view of some of these matters, both from the point of view of the farmer and of others concerned with the welfare of animals, so that our whole system is foolproof and avoids unnecessary suffering and the fullest and best use is made of the hides and offals. All these are matters of grave concern, not merely from a humane point of view, but also from that of efficiency and all the good that comes from it.
I think that the Minister ought to be willing to broaden his view on this subject, and even if he is not willing to accept this Amendment, should give a clear indication that one along these lines would be acceptable to him.

Mr. Robens: The Minister has said that one of the reasons that would prevent him from accepting the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) was the fear that someone who ought to be consulted may be left out.
In moving Amendments, we have never at any time claimed that we have produced the right words in the draft, and it would be appropriate, if the Minister was prepared to accept the general idea about consultation, to produce his own form of words and put them in the Bill in another place. It seems to me that it is quite simple for him to safeguard himself against not consulting all interests, and prevent anyone being left out, by indicating the principal people whom he thought ought to be consulted, and adding some such words as "and any other


persons whom the Minister deems desirable." Therefore, he can cover himself quite easily, and draftsmen are available to give him the best advice on the words to be employed.
What we are concerned about in dealing with this Amendment is to ensure that there is consultation. I should like to draw the attention of the House once again to the complications of the cross-references in this Bill, particularly on the matter we are now discussing. Subsection (4), which we are proposing to amend, provides:
(4) In paragraph (d) of subsection (4) of section seventy-five of the principal Act, for the reference to subsection (1) of section sixty-five of that Act there shall be substituted a reference to subsection (1) or subsection (2) of the said section sixty-five.
I am sure that all hon. Members here have got that perfectly clearly and understand exactly what it means. One must turn to the principal Act to understand it, and that is what I propose to do, because this has a bearing upon this Amendment. Section 75 (4, h) shows that the Minister must refuse a licence——

Mr. Godber: I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but I am sure that he appreciates that subsection (4), to which he is referring, is the one we deleted from the Bill a short time ago.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Robens: That is so, but, at the same time, the Amendment we have put forward deals with construction. The fact that this was in the Bill is a clear indication that we are dealing with construction, and reference is made to this Act. In fact, we are still relying on the principal Act for a good deal of the work that we are doing on this Bill. That passes us on to Section 65 and we have to substitute sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of subsection (2), which deal with construction. In dealing with construction one has to return to the 1954 Slaughter of Animals Act, under which the Minister had power to make regulations for the construction of slaughterhouses. I do not believe that any regulations have been made under that Act. If they have, they will have to be repealed to make way for the regulations to be made under this Measure. One has all these cross-references.
Everybody who has discussed the question of slaughterhouses, not only the inter-departmental Committee, has always had in mind the importance of the construction and equipment of slaughterhouses. There is abundant evidence that that is the case. The Ministry has been good enough to supply us with some of the recommended minimum standards for construction of slaughterhouses. They have been issued to aid persons intending to erect slaughterhouses so that they might know the minimum conditions for which they would be granted permission. They are not before us for discussion, but a glance at them shows that in almost every case reference is made to "suitable and sufficient". Those words occur in almost every line dealing with what a slaughterhouse shall contain.
Who is to determine what is "suitable and sufficient"? Who is to determine what is the suitable and sufficient space for hanging meat? Who is to determine what is suitable and sufficient space for a slaughterhall and hanging space for the emptying and cleaning of the intestines of animals to be slaughtered? That should not lie entirely with the Minister and his advisers. He should call into conference those who have to work in slaughterhouses, those who own and operate them, veterinary surgeons, and all who have a part to play in doing what, presumably, this Bill seeks to enable them to do.
I regard as the kernel of the Bill that we should seek to safeguard the health of the people of the nation in so far as it is affected by the slaughtering of animals. Already, more than 25 per cent. of cattle slaughtered in this country for human consumption are not examined as to fitness for human consumption. That is a clear indication that in the building of new slaughterhouses there must be such equipment as to minimise the danger of contamination. All we are asking is that the Minister should avail himself of the best expert advice. He says that he will consult these interests. I am sure he will, but he may not be the Minister who will draft the regulations. He was not the Minister who introduced the Bill. It is quite likely that before the Bill receives the Royal Assent another Minister will replace him.

Mr. Winterbottom: That Minister may be my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens).

Mr. Robens: I do not want to introduce a party point into the discussion. If there were another Government we would introduce another Bill, which would be a proper one. It is not enough for the Minister to say that he will consult the interests concerned. We are legislating not just for the present, or for the duration of the Minister's tenure of office, but for a very long time. We might not get back to this slaughterhouse legislation for a long time to come.
What is the objection to the Minister not only agreeing to consult these interests, but binding his successors to do so as well? Is that not a reasonable thing? He is not bound to accept the words of the Amendment, but why can he not say that in addition to consulting those interests he will bind his successors to do so when framing new regulations dealing with slaughterhouses? If he feels that he might miss a body out, the draftsmen could easily find words to meet the requirement.
This has been our experience in discussing many things on this Bill. I do not understand why we should have to go on to such length in discussing such obvious things, which would cost the Minister nothing. They would not add to the burden of his work, but they would improve the Bill. I hope that even now the Minister will say that not only will he consult these interests when making regulations for the construction of new slaughterhouses, but will bind his successors to do so and will find the appropriate words for insertion in another place which will have that effect.

Mr. Somerville Hastings: I want, in a few words, to put to the Minister a point of view which, I believe, has not been fully dealt with in the

Division No. 93.]
AYES
[8.38 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Boyd, T. C.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Cove, W. G.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brockway, A. F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cronin, J. D.


Awbery, S. S.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Balfour, A.
Burke, W. A.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Benson, Sir George
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Carmichael, J.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Blackburn, F.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Deer, G.


Boardman, H.
Champion, A. J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Diamond, John


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Clunie, J.
Dodds, N. N.


Bowles, F. G.
Coldrick, W.
Dye, S.

discussion so far. We, as human beings, accept a considerable responsibility in killing animals and using them for food. As I see them, the responsibilities are twofold. The first is that the animals should be killed with as little cruelty as possible, and the second is that there should be as little waste as possible so that no animals are unnecessarily killed.

I am old enough to remember the time when the slaughter of animals was an exceedingly cruel business. I have seen pig sticking in country districts and I have seen how pigs were killed in towns before the first Slaughter of Animals Act.

I am glad that we have advanced so far in the way in which we kill animals for food. We are also advancing in the way in which we take care of the products of their slaughter and use them to the best advantage. The advances which have been made have been the result of inquiries of the people who had practical experience and who went from country to country to see how things were done in other countries. I cannot help feeling that this process ought to continue.

The Minister cannot do without all the help he can possibly obtain. He has said that it is unnecessary to specify specific organisations to consult, but we are not asking for that. We are asking that specific types of organisation should be consulted. It will be for the Minister to say which of the animal welfare associations he thinks would give him most assistance, and that also applies to all the other types of society. It seems to me that no harm could possibly occur, but only good, if the Minister reconsidered the matter and accepted the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:

The House divided: Ayes 174, Noes 205.

Edelman, M.
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Proctor, W. T.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lindgren, G. S.
Rankin, John


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Logan, D. G.
Redhead, E. C.


Fernyhough, E.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Reeves, J.


Finch, H. J.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Rhodes, H.


Forman, J. C.
MacColl, J. E.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McGhee, H. G.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McInnes, J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McLeavy, Frank
Ross, William


Grey, C. F.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Hale, Leslie
Mahon, Simon
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Sorensen, R. W.


Hamilton, W. W.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Steele, T.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Hastings, S.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Hayman, F. H.
Mason, Roy
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Holmes, Horace
Moody, A. S.
Sylvester, G. O.


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Morrison, Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hoy, J. H.
Mort, D. L.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Moss, R.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Moyle, A.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Thornton, E.


Hunter, A. E.
Oliver, G. H.
Timmons, J.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Oram, A. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Orbach, M.
Watkins, T. E.


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Oswald, T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Owen, W. J.
Willey, Frederick


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Padley, W. E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Paget, R. T.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Jeger, George (Goole)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Parkin, B. T.
Winterbottom, Richard


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Paton, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, N.
Woof, R. E.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Popplewell, E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Kenyon, C.
Prentice, R. E.
Zilliacus, K.


King, Dr. H. M.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)



Lawson, G. M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Probert, A. R.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Channon, Sir Henry
Grimond, J.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)


Alport, C. J. M.
Cooke, Robert
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Arbuthnot, John
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Armstrong, C. W.
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Gurden, Harold


Ashton, H.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hall, John (Wycombe)


Atkins, H. E.
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Baldwin, A. E.
Cunningham, Knox
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Balniel, Lord
Currie, G. B. H.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Barber, Anthony
Dance, J. C. G.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Barlow, Sir John
Davidson, Viscountess
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)


Barter, John
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Deedes, W. F.
Hay, John


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Du Cann, E. D. L.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Duncan, Sir James
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Hirst, Geoffrey


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Bishop, F. P.
Errington, Sir Eric
Holt, A. F.


Black, C. W.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hornby, R. P.


Body, R. F.
Finlay, Graeme
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Bonham-Carter, Capt. M. R.
Fisher, Nigel
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Howard, John (Test)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Fort, R.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Boyle, Sir Edward
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Braine, B. R.
Glover, D.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Iremonger, T. L.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Godber, J. B.
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Goodhart, Philip
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Bryan, P.
Gower, H. R.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Burden, F. F. A.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Kaberry, D.


Carr, Robert
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr.R.(Nantwich)
Keegan, D.


Cary, Sir Robert
Green, A.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.







Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Kershaw, J. A.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Kimball, M.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Kirk, P. M.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Storey, S.


Lambton, Viscount
Nairn, D. L. S.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Nicholls, Harmar
Studholme, Sir Henry


Langford-Holl, J. A.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Leavey, J. A.
Nicolson, N.(B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Leburn, W. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Teeling, W.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Oakshott, H. D.
Temple, John M.


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim,N.)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Page, R. G.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Longden, Gilbert
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)



Partridge, E.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Peel, W. J.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Vane, W. M. F.


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Pitman, I. J.
Vickers, Miss Joan


McKibbin, Alan
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Powell, J. Enoch
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wall, Patrick


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Ramsden, J. E.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Rawlinson, Peter
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Redmayne, M.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Ridsdale, J. E.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maddan, Martin
Rippon, A. G. F.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Woollam, John Victor


Marshall, Douglas
Russell, R. S.



Mathew, R.
Soott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Sharples, R. C.
Mr. Gibson-Watt and


Mawby, R. L.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Mr. Chichester-Clark.


Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Spearman, Sir Alexander

Clause 2.—(LICENSING OF SLAUGHTER- HOUSES WHERE LOCAL RESTRICTIONS IN FORCE.)

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, to leave out from "force" to "either" in line 40 and to insert:

(a) a resolution having effect under section severity-five or section seventy-six of the principal Act; or
(b) a provision of a local Ac: whereby, notwithstanding the grant of such a licence, the use as a slaughterhouse of the premises to which the application relates would he unlawful,

the three next following subsections shall have effect notwithstanding anything in the resolution or provision in question, and, while any licence granted or renewed in pursuance of those subsections is in force and any terms, conditions or restrictions imposed by or under any local Act are complied with, nothing in any such provision of a local Act as aforesaid shall prevent, or subject any person to any penalty by reason of, the use of those premises as a slaughterhouse or the slaughter of animals on those premises.
(2) Not later than two months after receiving such an application as aforesaid, the local authority shall.
At this point we move to Clause 2, and to this Clause there are some very substantial Amendments—in appearance, at any rate. They are, I fear, very long and laborious and difficult to understand, but they are, in the main, drafting Amendments which seek to meet wishes which were expressed in Committee. We

must remember that this Clause deals wholly with areas where there are restrictions due to resolutions under Sections 75 and 76 of the 1955 Act or under local Acts. The whole of the provisions of this Clause relate to this narrow class of cases.
As I mentioned on an earlier Amendment, we have written Section 75 (4) into this Clause. I merely mention that in passing, because we come to that at a later stage, but it has a bearing on this Amendment because there is a reference to subsection (4), which we are seeking to delete. The actual insertion in this Amendment, while it is related to some of the other Amendments and is difficult to define separately, relates mainly to local Act provisions. This Amendment and the two subsequent ones tie up the slight change that we are making in relation to local Act provisions.
The point was made in Committee that in certain cases, while we were bringing local Act provisions into line with Sections 75 and 76 resolutions, we were perhaps at the same time restricting and inhibiting local Act provisions in other respects. It was pointed out that it was unfair, and that while it might be argued that it was fair to bring local Act provisions into line with Section 75 resolutions in the main to bring about a measure of uniformity, at the same time


it would be wrong to go further than that and to deny to local Acts certain extra safeguards which had been taken in relation to slaughterhouses in particular.
The Amendment is designed, as I say, together with the one which comes later, to deal, in particular, with that point and make it clear that, while we are bringing local Acts into line with Sections 75 and 76 resolutions, we are at the same time, making it clear that where a local Act contains any other particular matters relating to slaughterhouses, apart from the licence provision, those particular provisions should stand. That is really the gist of the Amendment. It is introduced in response to requests made to us in Committee. I apologise for its complication, but we are, by it, seeking to meet a point put by hon. Gentlemen opposite and, indeed, by one of my hon. Friends. I hope that, in spite of its complexity, the Amendment will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Wiley: I am embarrassed again by the Parliamentary Secretary making his confession of meeting us on this side. I am afraid that my "diligent slaughter-man" has been certified. Having tried to understand the Bill as originally published, having tried to follow the Amendment's made in Standing Committee, he then sought to read the various versions of the Notice Paper as Amendments, and amended Amendments came out. Finally, he gave it all up.
It is really an under-statement to say that this and the following Amendments are difficult to understand. Clause 2 was one of the most difficult of all Clauses parliamentarians have been asked to comprehend. Incidentally, it ran to three pages. Now, on Report—this is what I protest about—practically the whole of the Clause is rewritten. In fact, it would have been better if the Parliamentary Secretary had rewritten the Clause, because we find long Amendments with bits of the Bill as amended in Committee interspersed between them. I should not be surprised if Members of Parliament, even though they tried to tackle the task with moderation, suffered the fate of the diligent slaughterman in attempting to follow what the Government are doing. It is really a preposterous way of legislating. I defy any hon. Gentleman opposite to tell us what we are doing. No one has the slightest idea. My fears are

confirmed, for not a single hon. Gentleman has risen to express comprehension of this Clause as amended
I am in a further difficulty about this, because matters are worse than I have so far indicated. In Standing Committee we had a very difficult, but understandable, part of the Bill replaced by an Amendment moved by the Parliamentary Secretary. When the Parliamentary Secretary moved his Amendment, which is part of the Bill as amended in Standing Committee, I said:
I am in the extraordinary difficulty that I could understand, believe it or not, the original words, and, with some of my hon. Friends, put down an Amendment to the words that at present form part of the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary has now tabled an Amendment that I cannot understand, and we, therefore, have not been in a position to put down an Amendment to his Amendment"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 4th February, 1958; c. 478.]
At any rate, I am obliged to the Parliamentary Secretary, at this late stage, for recognising that. I say at once that the new Amendment, which withdraws the Amendment he put down in Standing Committee and which robbed us of an opportunity of ourselves putting down an Amendment, is sufficiently intelligible for us to put down an Amendment to it.
I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary has gone some way towards preserving parliamentary decency, but I will not go into that because we shall reach our Amendment in due course. I am obliged to him for going so far. We shall now be able to discuss the Amendment that we could not discuss in Committee because of the inability to follow the words that the Parliamentary Secretary inserted in the Bill and which he is now taking out.
As I say, the hon. Gentleman cannot help making Amendments, but we have had this extraordinary performance of three days' Notice Papers coming out with Amendments being amended. Microscopic examination was needed to know the point of the Amendments. The Parliamentary Secretary suffers from a disease for making Amendments—indeed, making Amendments to Amendments.
I do not wish to press this point too far. I understood that the Parliamentary Secretary felt that his proposal improved the wording of the Bill, and we accept that. I understood that the proposal had some laudatory objectives and that at any rate the hon. Gentleman accepted


part of our case, although not the whole of it, as we shall argue on the Amendment. I fully understood the hon. Gentleman's explanation, and, in so far as he has sought to meet us in part, we welcome the Amendment.
Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.
Question proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, to leave out from "Act" to the end of line 5.
Perhaps the following two Amendments might be taken at the same time, in line 7, leave out "or provision"; and in line 7, leave out from "question" to the end of line 12.
I had better explain what we are trying to do by these Amendments. I do not apologise for this, because, frankly I confess that we think that we understand the purport of the new wording. We thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for going as far as he has to meet us. However, we do not think that he has gone far enough, and that is why we have tabled these Amendments.
I hope that we can get some support from hon. Gentlemen opposite about this matter, which we argued forthrightly in Committee. It is a matter upon which we should exercise our judgment. The Parliamentary Secretary has acknowledged that we have a case. He has said—and we have to rely upon his word that this point is being dealt with under the Bill—"I do not wish to disturb local Acts of Parliament except where I must disturb them to provide uniformity for licensing provisions". Why uniformity? Without wishing in any way to be offensive, I know that administrators wish to he tidy and that they want uniformity. But what is the sole purpose of local Acts of Parliament? Why do we spend our time upstairs discussing private Bills? The answer is, to provide for breaches in uniformity. That is the whole purpose of local Acts.
Where a local authority has sought and obtained exceptional powers from this House, it is not good enough that, on the broad argument of uniformity, we should wipe that power away. That is the principle that we are arguing, or endeavouring to argue, by this Amendment. As

I say, the Parliamentary Secretary said, "Provided these local Acts deal with other matters than licensing, we concede your case". Why not concede our case altogether? He has made no well-founded argument in support of what he is doing and he is taking away the dearly-won privileges of local authorities and particular localities. For particular, special and peculiar reasons these local authorities have obtained exceptional powers concerning the licensing of slaughterhouses. Why should this be upset?
9.0 p.m.
In Standing Committee, we asked for cases to be quoted and why the hon. Gentleman was causing this interference. All that he can say is that he must have uniformity. That is a very bad attitude. If it could be shown that local Acts had provided this, that and the other, which would interfere with the principles of the Bill, the Government could say that they were proceeding in spite of the privileges and rights that different local authorities and localities had taken. The hon. Gentleman, however, has not said that. He has not given any particulars of the powers enjoyed by some local authorities.
In those circumstances, although the Parliamentary Secretary has come to a partial recognition of our case, we feel that he should go the whole way and say that when local authorities have obtained these special powers, we should leave them undisturbed. I hope that, having heard us redeploy the argument and having slipped so far as to come a little way to meet us, the hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendments.

Mr. Godber: As the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) rightly said, we discussed this matter in general in Committee. I tried then to explain that in cases like this there was little difference between a local
authority which had taken specific powers under Section 75 or 76 and the provisions of a local Act in relation to licensing. The hon. Member has rested his case this evening, as he did before, largely on the rights of local authorities to promote local Bills dealing with their own specific local problems. That is fair enough, and I do not dissent from it. What I do say is that when almost the whole of those local Acts were considered and brought into force, no general provision of this kind existed. It


was only in the 1938 Act that we introduced these provisions, which we are reinforcing in the present Bill.
Therefore, the fact that we are, in many cases, altering these local authority powers does not in the least inhibit local authorities, particularly now that we have taken the step, which we have done in the Amendment which we have just passed, to safeguard their other powers. We have felt it right that they should come under the same rule as those local authorities which have power by virtue of a Section 75 or 76 resolution relating to slaughterhouses. I do not see that for that reason they are being placed at any serious disadvantage. We provided for this procedure in the White Paper isued in May, 1956, when we explained how we proposed to deal with local authority cases of this sort. We are merely following the line which we established in that White Paper.
I said in Committee that if there were any particular difficulties or problems for local authorities which had local Acts and were afraid that these new provisions would cause difficulty, I would be glad to look into them. I said that we had heard of none, and I can still say the same. As far as I am aware, no representations have been made to us since then.
That, therefore, leads me to believe that the policy we are following is not doing any damage to the interests of these local authorities in relation to licensing. After all, there is no positive harm in uniformity, as I think the hon. Gentleman will agree. We are bringing in this new system of licensing which, as he well knows, provides a new arrangement for areas outside the Section 75 and 76 and local Act areas—which have the provisions of this Clause allied to them. We feel there is an advantage in uniformity, in enabling the "diligent slaughterman" to realise exactly what is expected of him, whatever the area.
I can see no harm coming to any local authority area having a local Act in relation to licensing. For that reason, I prefer to stand on the position set out here, where we are seeking to keep uniformity between the local authority area with a Section 75 resolution and one which has a local Act. For that reason, I do not feel I can accept the Amendment. I stress the point I made earlier, that the provisions we have brought forward and

the 1938 Act are nearly all subsequent to any local Acts. Therefore, I would have thought that most local authorities would have been satisfied with these provisions. For this reason, I am afraid I cannot commend the Amendment to the House.

Mr. Darling: The trouble we are in is that again we do not know what we are talking about. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] That is because nobody knows how many local authorities will be affected by the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, namely, the Section 76 resolution local authorities under the previous Act, and so on. We are working completely in the dark. We would have been in a far better position in dealing with this Bill if, from the beginning we had known the relevant statistics for slaughterhouses, where they are, the kind in existence, and the proposals and hopes of local authorities on this matter.
Right from the beginning, however, we have been ignorant of the area of activity with which we are supposed to be concerned. We have also been faced with the incredible attitude on the part of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, and now the Minister, whom we have with us for a change today—[Horn. MEMBERS: Where is he?"] He will be back in a few moments. We are in this incredible position that they cannot be consistent throughout the Bill.
When we pleaded for uniformity in the design of stunning pens to go into slaughterhouses, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary argued, both today and in Committee, that uniformity was something we should not accept. For instance, to quote him only once, the hon. Gentleman said:
We have seen designs of one or two very good types of small stunning pens, but I do not think that there is a need at the moment for us to certify any particular type. This is a matter which we can and should leave to the discretion of local authorities."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 13th March, 1958; c. 1179.]
So, throughout the Bill, the hon. Gentleman has been saying, "Let us leave this to the good sense and discretion of local authorities." Now he says, "We must not leave the organisation of slaughterhouses and abattoirs in a local government area to the local authority. We must have uniformity laid down for them."
I have tried to explain frequently in Committee the difficulty I am in. In


England and Wales there is a good pattern of slaughterhouse organisation which we should try to follow in general; that is the pattern which has been established by a local Act in the City of Sheffield.
There is a municipal abattoir, and no private slaughterhouses are allowed to function within the city boundaries. As a result, we have a very good system. We are about the only city in the country which can guarantee 100 per cent. meat inspection both of cattle slaughtered in the city and meat imported into it. This is the pattern that we should like the whole country to follow, but I am very much afraid that, under the legislation which we shall be passing if the Amendments to the Government Amendment are not carried, we shall prevent local authorities from coming up to the standards set by Sheffield if they wish to do so.

Mr. Winterbottom: I should not like my hon. Friend's statement to go on record without correction. He said that Sheffield has only one abattoir. I agree with his general principle, but there are two other abattoirs of a private nature which were allowed to continue when the old abattoirs were bought out between 1930 and 1940. There are now three abattoirs in existence—one for the killing of horses, one for the killing of pigs, and the other, which is the general abattoir, with which my hon. Friend is dealing.

Mr. Darling: The two others cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called abattoirs; they are little local slaughterhouses, one licensed by the local authority because it does not want horses slaughtered in its municipal abattoir, and the other which deals with the seasonal requirements in the case of pigs. For all practical purposes, the municipal abattoir has a monopoly of the meat trade of the city.
If local authorities want to follow Sheffield's example, they should be permitted and encouraged to do so, but am afraid that unless we stop the Government in their present course we shall make it extremely difficult, even for Section 76 resolution authorities, to follow Sheffield's example. If we place obstacles in their way we shall be acting in a very retrogressive manner. I dislike the original Clause, the Government's Amendment to it, and the whole of the Bill as it

relates to the licensing of abattoirs and slaughterhouses by local authorities. I hope that the small Amendment that we propose, which will improve matters, will be accepted.

Dr. Stross: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has made it clear that in his view the Amendment relates essentially to local Acts, and I am sure that is correct. My difficulty, like that of other hon. Members, arises from the fact that I am not absolutely clear how this part of the Clause will be interpreted. I know that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary considered this point and pleaded uniformity when we discussed it at an earlier stage. In Committee, he said:
I was seeking to explain that it was our view in introducing this legislation that we should try to tidy up the whole procedure. When we had provided, as we felt, adequate and proper cover for local authorities in relation to the provision of public slaughterhouses, we felt it right that restrictions which could be placed on private slaughterhouses should be treated in the same way as resolutions under Section 75 of the principal Act and we felt it proper to bring all local Acts within these bounds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th February. 1958; c. 491.]
That gave a very fair view of what the Minister had in mind, and I believe that it is still his view.
9.15 p.m.
The right hon. Gentleman wants to bring them all together. He thinks that there is no harm in that. I am in some difficulty in this matter, for I do not know how anyone will interpret what all this means. Following the speech which I have just quoted, I tried hard to understand what it was about. I have never done this before, and I hope that the House will forgive me if I quote again a few lines of what I then said, which I think it is worth reading again. I said:
I have tried to understand it by looking at the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill. There very clearly and in simple language we are told what the Clause deals with. That has helped me to some extent, but when I looked at the references I was brought all the way back to knacker yards. If we look at the words we find a reference to Section 6.4 of the principal Act That Section refers to paragraph (a), which points out that the Minister has consented to a refusal and to paragraph (b), which says:
'unless the authority are not, in relation to the premises in respect of which the application is made, satisfied as mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (2) of Section sixty-five of the principal Act …'


That Section deals by reference with Section 13 and two paragraphs (a) and (d) and also to byelaws. Then we get reference directly to that Section, which deals with knacker yards."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th February, 1958; c. 493–4.]
If any hon. Member has understood what I have said, all I can say is that he is wiser than I am. I cannot now understand what I said then, nor can anyone else understand what it is all about now.
I support what my hon. Friends have said about the situation in which local authorities find themselves. The Parliamentary Secretary said he had not consulted individual local authorities but had been in touch with local authority associations. He also said that he was disturbed at the wording of this, and he made a magnificent speech about the meaning of a comma. I pointed out that the insertion of a comma could alter the meaning of a phrase and could give either one meaning or its exact opposite.
I plead once more for clarity. It may be too late to do much about this Bill, but we can hope that we do not get any more Bills with so much reference and cross-reference in them. It makes a farce of the whole thing for people like ourselves who are laymen, especially so when even hon. and learned Gentlemen say that they cannot understand a word of it.

Mr. Godber: I am comforted by the fact that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) apparently read and understood the quotation front my speech during the Committee stage, but he could not understand what he himself said on that occasion. That is a satisfactory state of affairs from my point of view, and I am happy to think that my thoughts during the Committee stage discussions were clearer than his.

Dr. Stross: The Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that in quoting him I was describing his intention and the

Division No. 94.]
AYES
[9.22 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Baxter, Sir Beverley
Boyle, Sir Edward


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Beamish, Col. Tufton
Braine, B. R.


Alport, C. J. M.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Braithwaite,Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)


Arbuthnot, John
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Armstrong, C. W.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Brooman-White, R. C.


Ashton, H.
Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)


Atkins, H. E.
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Bryan, P.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bishop, F. P.
Burden, F. F. A.


Baldwin, A. E.
Black, C. W.
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Balniel, Lord
Body, R. F.
Carr, Robert


Barber, Anthony
Bonham-Carter, Capt. M. R.
Cary, Sir Robert


Barlow, Sir John
Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Channon, Sir Henry


Barter, John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Chichester-Clark, R.

malevolence of the steps he was taking. When I quoted what I said, I was trying to understand what would be the ultimate end of his malevolence.

Mr. Godber: I tried to make clear what would be the ultimate end of my benevolence—I am sure that that was the word the hon. Member intended to use.
Seriously, I have looked at this matter most carefully. I have been re-reading the words I used in the Committee, where I said that we sent a memorandum to the local authority associations——

Mr. Robens: Not the individual authorities.

Mr. Godber: No, the associations which we assumed would have discussed these matters. They all had had plenty of time to do so since February, 1956. If there had been real substance in the point we should have had strong representations.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) referred once more to his own local authority, which has a local Act. The Amendment is to make sure that there is no divergence between authorities which
have passed a Section 75 resolution and some which have a local Act. We have no intention of causing difficulty to the hon. Member's local authority, but for administrative purposes we felt that it was right and proper to safeguard the position of local authorities in any other matters relating to slaughterhouses. Hon. Members are rather overstressing the point. I understand their caution and anxiety, but there is no basis for it, and it would not be right to accept the Amendment.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 208. Noes 177.

Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Page, R. G.


Cooke, Robert
Howard, John (Test)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Partridge, E.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Peel, W. J.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh.S.)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Pitman, I. J.


Cunningham, Knox
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Currie, G. B. H.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Powell, J. Enoch


Dance, J. C. G.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Davidson, Viscountess
Kaberry, D.
Ramsden, J. E.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Keegan, D.
Rawlinson, Peter


Deedes, W. F.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Redmayne, M.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Ridsdale, J. E.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Kershaw, J. A.
Rippon, A. G. F.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T.(Richmond)
Kimball, M.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Duncan, Sir James
Kirk, P. M.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Lambton, Viscount
Russell, R. S.


Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castleupon Tyne,N.)
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R,


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Sharples, R. C.


Errington, Sir Eric
Leavey, J. A.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leburn, W. G.
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Fisher, Nigel
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Fort, R.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Storey, S.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Longden, Gilbert
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Glover, D.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Studholme, Sir Henry


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer


Godber, J. B.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Goodhart, Philip
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Teeling, W.


Gower, H. R.
McKibbin, Alan
Temple, John M.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Grant, W. (Woodside)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Green, A.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Grimond, J.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maddan, Martin
Vane, W. M. F.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Gurden, Harold
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marshall, Douglas
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Hare, Rt. Hen. J. H.
Mathew, R.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Mawby, R. L.
Wall, Patrick


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Hay, John
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nairn, D. L. S.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nicholts, Harmar
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Wood, Hon. R.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Woollam, John Victor


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nugent, G. R. H.



Holland-Martin, C. J.
Oakshott, H. D.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Holt, A. F.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and


Hornby, R. P.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Mr. Finlay.


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Champion, A. J.
Foot, D. M.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Chetwynd, G. R.
Forman, J. C.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Clunie, J.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Coldrick, W.
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.


Awbery, S. S.
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Balfour, A.
Cove, W. G.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Grey, C. F.


Benson, Sir George
Cronin, J. D.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hale, Leslie


Blackburn, F.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Boardman, H.
Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hamilton, W. W.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Hastings, S.


Bowles, F. G.
Deer, G.
Hayman, F. H.


Boyd, T. C.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Herbison, Miss M.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Diamond, John
Holmes, Horace


Brockway, A. F.
Dodds, N. N.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dye, S.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Burke, W. A.
Edelman, M.
Hoy, J. H.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Carmichael, J.
Fernyhough, E.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Finch, H. J.
Hunter, A. E.







Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Mitchison, G. R.
Ross, William


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Mort, D. L.
Sorensen, R. W.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Moss, R.
Steele, T.


Jeger, George (Goole)
Moyle, A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Jeger,Mrs.Lena(Holbn &amp; St. Pncs.S.)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Stonehouse, John


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Oliver, G. H.
Stross, Dr.Barnett(stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Oram, A. E.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Orbach, M.
Sylvester, G. O.


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Oswald, T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Jones, T. D. (Merioneth)
Owen, W. J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Kenyon, C.
Padley, W. E.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


King, Dr. H. M.
Paget, R. T.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Lawson, G. M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thornton, E.


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Timmons, J.


Lindgren, G. S.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Logan, D. G.
Parkin, B. T.
Watkins, T. E.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Paton, John
Wheeldon, W. E.


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Pentland, N.
Willey, Frederick


MacColl, J. E.
Popplewell, E.
Williams, David (Neath)


McGhee, H. G.
Prentice, R. E.
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


McGovern, J.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don valley)


McInnes, J.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Probert, A. R.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


McLeavy, Frank
Proctor, W. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Rankin, John
Winterbottom, Richard


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Redhead, E. C.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Mahon, Simon
Reeves, J.
Woof, R. E.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Rhodes, H.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Zilliacus, K.


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Mason, Roy
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 4, line I to leave out from "Minister" to "the" in line 14, and to insert:
(a) if he is not satisfied that the grant of the licence is necessary for the purpose of securing adequate slaughterhouse facilities or expedient for special reasons, shall direct the authority to refuse the application forthwith; or
(b) if he is satisfied as aforesaid, shall direct that, save as required by section five or section (Isolation of slaughterhalls from dwellings) of this Act.
I hope that hon. Members will accept that this is not so involved an Amendment as some of the others. It is relatively simple, but none the less important. It seeks to make good the undertaking I gave in Committee that we would look again at the provisions in this subsection in relation to the Minister's discretion on consent to the issue of licences. This deals with a point brought forward largely at the instigation of the Association of Municipal Corporations. On representations from both sides of the Committee, we agreed to find some words to meet to some extent the case put forward.
The words in the Amendment go a very considerable way to meet this point. We are saying that instead of there being merely the negative provision as at

present in the Bill, the discretion of the Minister shall be bound both ways. If he is not satisfied that the grant of the licence is necessary, he should direct that it should be refused and, if he is satisfied that it is necessary, he should direct that it should not be refused. It was put to us that it was unfair and unreasonable for the matter to be left in the form in which it appears in the Bill. We have tried to tidy it up and to meet the representations made to us, and to make quite specific in what circumstances the Minister shall direct refusal and in what circumstances he shall direct that there shall be no refusal.
I hope that this Amendment will meet the representations put forward by my hon. Friends and right hon. and hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Willey: We are obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation of the Amendment and his endeavour to go some way to meet us. We have a point to raise on the matter, but I think that it will be better dealt with by way of our Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Question proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Wiley: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave Out from "necessary" to "for", in line 4.
We appreciate that the Parliamentary Secretary has gone some way to meet points which were raised from both sides of the Committee, but he has not entirely satisfied us. I want to make it clear to hon. Members who may not have followed the proceedings in Committee that we are trying to safeguard the rights of local authorities from bureaucratic interference. We have to bear in mind that the Department is dismantling its own administration for slaughterhouses. To a very large measure this is bureaucratic interference with local authorities, and I am sure that the whole House agrees that we should limit it as much as possible.
It is no good the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) laughing. He pretends to be very sanctimonious and virtuous on such matters and claims to be a good constitutional lawyer. He should pay some heed to the rights of local authorities, particularly when hon. Members on both sides of the Committee raised the matter and when we are discussing a concession made upon it by the Government. We are considering whether the Government have gone far enough.
The Government have not gone as far as they indicated they would go when they laid the White Paper. The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that when we discussed this matter in Committee we dealt with paragraph 17 of the White Paper where the reference is to special cases. The criticism which we have of the present provision is twofold. We recognise that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has divided the provision, but we are not very satisfied with the words
that the grant of the licence is necessary for the purpose of securing adequate slaughterhouse facilities or expedient …
We are not very satisfied with those words or with the Minister's approach.
I do not think that it is wise to express this negatively. It is a little confusing when, in the next provision, we read:
If he is satisfied as aforesaid".
There is no reference aforesaid to his being satisfied, only to his not being satisfied. I make that point only by way of illustration. I do not like this form of drafting, because I do not think that it puts the matter very clearly.
We are dealing with when the Minister should refuse the application, and we should positively state the grounds on which he should refuse it. Here, we provide that the Minister may direct the authority to refuse the application on wider terms, and we should therefore have preferred this to have been for a special reason, to have confined it to special reasons and to have made the burden on the Minister that of satisfying himself that there were special reasons for the licence being granted. In other words, we should have expressed it positively.
The reason I did not welcome the amusement of the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey was that if we place the burden upon the local authorities for deciding whether there are adequate slaughterhouse facilities, then we must leave the burden there. If the Minister is to interfere, that is the ground on which he ought not to interfere, because as things will be when the Bill comes into operation, the local authorities will be the only bodies able to ascertain this. The Ministry will no longer be in a position to give an effective decision upon it. The Minister can determine what special reasons there may be. We should safeguard the rights and responsibilities of local authorities and confine this to special reasons as, in fact, the Minister's predecessor himself indicated in the first instance.

Mr. Robens: I beg formally to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has made, with some force, the point that local authorities have to be safeguarded against bureaucratic intervention or interference, but it is only fair to remind him that local authorities are not the only people who have to be so safeguarded. The slaughterhouse owner and operator is entitled to the same safeguard. It all depends on how one interprets that term. It could be bureaucratic intervention on the part of the local authority just as well as on that of the Government themselves.
After all, the Minister, both as Minister of Agriculture and Minister of Food, has certain very real responsibilities in this connection, and it will surely be


wrong were he not to be able to assure himself that there were adequate slaughterhouse facilities in the area. If the facilities are not adequate, then the consumers, the butchers, and, possibly, the local farmers in that area are being denied something that should be provided——

Mr. Willey: We have to recognise who has the responsibility of administration. If there had been a plan for moderate concentration I would have accepted the hon. Gentleman's argument, but there is no such plan and the responsibility is put on the local authorities. I use the term "bureaucratic interference" in the sense of first placing a responsibility on a local authority and then subjecting it to outside interference on grounds such as this. It is a matter which should be left to local authorities, and we should confine the Minister's interference to interference for special reasons.

Mr. Godber: I quite accept the hon. Gentleman's point. I was merely pointing out that there are other forms of bureaucratic intervention. The subsection provides for this appeal to the Minister, and, that being so, the Minister surely ought to have the right to assure himself, if necessary, that there are adequate slaughterhouse facilities in the area. If we did not make that provision we should be failing in our duty.
Hon. Members might argue that "special reasons" covered adequate slaughterhouse facilities, but I am advised that, legally, the term would not necessarily cover the securing of those facilities, and I must accept that advice. I think that it is essential to keep the words in the Bill so as to ensure that the Minister is in a position, in case of need, to give a decision on the grounds that adequate slaughterhouse facilities are necessary. I cannot, therefore, advise the House to accept this Amendment.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. R. T. Paget: My anxiety is whether the Clause is intelligible, and seeing the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) here I was wondering whether he intended to help us on this. We have a curious sort of negative. Paragraph (a) starts:
if he is not satisfied that the grant of the licence is necessary …

Why have that curious negative description? It goes on:
for the purpose of securing adequate slaughterhouse facilities or expedient for special reasons …
What is not necessary or expedient for special reasons?
Suppose the Minister comes to the conelusion that he is not satisfied—that is negative—
… that the grant of the licence is necessary for the purpose of securing adequate slaughterhouse facilities …
If it is not wanted, then I understand that it is disallowed. Then come the words—and I am not certain whether this phrase is governed by the previous negative or not—
or expedient for special reasons …
Is it a positive, or is it a negative? Just what does the Minister contemplate?
I do not know whether this is the sort of thing which can be conveniently unintelligible, because as it cannot go before a judge nobody can criticise it, but what has the Minister got in mind by the words
or expedient for special reasons"?
What are the reasons? Is it subject to the previous negative or not?

Mr. Godber: I rather think, though I have not refreshed my memory, that the point relating to "special reasons" was brought up by hon. Members opposite. It was they who wished us to insert those words.
As to the double negative, while it may not be wholly usual, I think it is clear what is intended there when it is read in conjunction with the Bill itself. The Clause, as amended, would read:
… the Minister

(a) if he is not sartisfied that the grant of the licence is necessary for the purpose of securing adequate slaughterhouse facilities or expedient for special reasons …"

The words "not satisfied" relate both to the
grant … for the purpose of securing adequate slaughterhouse facilities
and to the words
or expedient for special reasons.
The two seem to tie up quite clearly.

Mr. Paget: What has the Minister got to be satisfied about—that it is expedient for special reasons to grant it, or that it


is not expedient for special reasons to grant it? Does the "not" govern the "expedient" or does not it? It is difficult to follow.

Mr. Godber: The point is that the Minister is not satisfied that the grant is necessary for the purpose of securing adequate slaughterhouses, and he is not satisfied that the grant is expedient for special reasons. That is how I read it, and I think it is quite clear. If he is not satisfied that it is expedient for special reasons, provided that he is satisfied on the question of adequate slaughterhouse facilities, he directs the authority to refuse.

Dr. Stross: My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) said that he thought these words would never be seen by a judge. I do not know whether that is right. Would the Joint Parliamentary Secretary let us know whether that is the case, that there would never conceivably be a legal interpretation of these words—or are these simple words only for the guidance of the diligent slaughterman?

Mr. Godber: It would be dangerous if I were to say that they would never come before a judge in any circumstances. I certainly do not intend to commit myself in that respect, much as the hon. Gentleman might wish to tempt me. These are two quite separate items. I have tried to explain why the point relating to "adequate slaughterhouse facilities" is necessary, and it is important to remember that the Minister might well consider that matter on national grounds as well as local grounds. The local authority can look at it on local grounds whereas the Minister can do so on national as well as local grounds. The point relating to "special reasons" was included at the request of hon. Members opposite and we think that it was reasonable to insert those words. I hope that the House will now be willing to leave the matter.

Mr. Paget: Could this ambiguity be cleared up by substituting the word "nor" for the word "or"? Grammatically, it surely ought to be "nor".

Mr. Speaker: I do not know what sort of form we are proceeding on here. The hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary has made two or three interventions

in this debate already, and the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) has made two or three. It would be far better, I think, and more in conformity with the practice of the House, since we are not in Committee now, if every hon. Member who had something to say about the proposed Amendment were to say it, and then the Parliamentary Secretary could reply to it all at the end. We cannot have a succession of speeches by the same hon. Members.

Mr. Robens: I appreciate full well the guidance that you have given to the House, Mr. Speaker, but I am sure that you, more than anyone else, having had to look at the Bill and the Amendments, will understand the tremendous difficulty we are in on this side, through no fault of our own, as a result of the large number of Amendments put down and subsequently amended. We have had two or three Notice Papers, all with Amendments which have been subsequently amended. We can hardly keep pace with the paper chase. Therefore, in trying to deal with these Amendments, we have before us a Clause which, substantially, is being completely rewritten.
It would have been much more helpful if the whole Clause had been withdrawn and a fresh Clause put in. We should then have seen the thing in toto. We will do our best to follow your guidance, Mr. Speaker, but, from time to time, these interchanges do take place, with no desire on our part to take up too much time.
I wish merely to say that I am not happy about what the Parliamentary Secretary has said. It seems clear from the interchanges he has had with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget), that he himself is not so sure now about the meaning of this wording as he was when he first rose. I should have thought that it was enough to take into the Minister's authority or power the granting or not granting of a licence for special reasons, and he might have left it to a local authority to ensure adequate slaughterhouse facilities in its area, or, jointly with other authorities in their respective areas where they share slaughterhouse accommodation. It is really going a little too far to suggest that a local authority which has the responsibility placed upon it by Statute and in other ways to ensure the provision of all that is necessary for the


citizens who elect it should turn down a licence for a slaughterhouse when, in fact, there are not sufficient or adequate facilities in the area.
I should have thought it strange that the Minister should want to take these powers. It is a reflection upon the local authority. Quite frankly, now that it appears in its full form, and if the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is not accepted, one wonders why the local authority is even to consider the question of granting licences. The matter might go direct to the Minister himself, because he takes the whole of the authority out of the hands of local authorities. I should not regard that as very reasonable. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister will think again about the Amendment which

Division No. 95.]
AYES
[9.55 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Dance, J. C. G.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence


Alport, C. J. M.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Deedes, W. F.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.


Arbuthnot, John
Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.


Armstrong, C. W.
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)


Ashton, H.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Iremonger, T. L.


Atkins, H. E.
Duncan, Sir James
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Baldwin, A. E.
Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne,N.)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Balniel, Lord
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot


Barber, Anthony
Errington, Sir Eric
Kaberry, D.


Barlow, Sir John
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Keegan, D.


Barter, John
Finlay, Graeme
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Fisher, Nigel
Kershaw, J. A.


Beamish, Col. Tufton
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Kimball, M.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fort, R.
Kirk, P. M.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lambton, Viscount


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Gibson-Watt, D.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Glover, D.
Langford-Holt, J. A.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Leavey, J. A.


Bishop, F. P.
Godber, J. B.
Leburn, W. G.


Black, C. W.
Goodhart, Philip
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Body, R. F.
Gower, H. R.
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.


Bonham-Carter, Capt. M. R.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Longden, Gilbert


Boyle, Sir Edward
Green, A.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Braine, B. R.
Grimond, J.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Macdonald, Sir Peter


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry


Brooman-White, R. C.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McKibbin, Alan


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Gurden, Harold
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Bryan, P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Carr, Robert
Harris, Reader (Heston)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Cary, Sir Robert
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Channon, Sir Henry
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maddan, Martin


Chichester-Clark, R.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Cooke, Robert
Hay, John
Marshall, Douglas


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Mathew, R.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Mawby, R. L.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Cunningham, Knox
Holt, A. F.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Currie, G. B. H.
Hornby, R. P.
Nairn, D. L. S.

my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has moved.

Mr. Godber: If I may have leave to speak again, while I understand the point of view put by the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), I think it is important to remember that subsection (2) is, after all, a provision which comes in only where cases are coming forward on appeal to the Minister. That is the whole purpose. We feel, therefore, if that be so, that the Minister must be entitled to consider this aspect as well as the other.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment:—

The House divided Ayes 210, Noes 173.

Nicholls, Harmar
Ridsdale, J. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)
Rippon, A. G. F.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Oakshott, H. D.
Russell, R. S.
Vane, W. M. F.


O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, H.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Sharples, R. C.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Page, R. G.
Spearman, Sir Alexander
Wall, Patrick


Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Partridge, E.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Peel, W. J.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Pike, Miss Mervyn
Storey, S.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Pitman, I. J.
Studholme, Sir Henry
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Pitt, Miss E. M.
Summers, Sir Spencer
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Powell, J. Enoch
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Price, David (Eastleigh)
Teeling, W.
Woollam, John Victor


Ramsden, J. E.
Temple, John M.



Rawlinson, Peter
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Redmayne, M.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Mr. Legh and




Mr. Edward Wakefield.




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Paling, Will T. (Dewshury)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hoy, J. H.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Parkin, B. T.


Awbery, S. S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paton, John


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pentland, N.


Benson, Sir George
Hunter, A. E.
Popplewell, E.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Prentice, R. E.


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Boardman, H.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Probert, A. R.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Proctor, W. T.


Bowles, F. G,
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Rankin, John


Boyd, T. C.
Jeger, George (Goole)
Redhead, E. C.


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs.S.)
Reeves, J.


Brookway, A. F.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rhodes, H.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Burke, W. A.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Ross, William


Champion, A. J.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Chetwynd, G. R.
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Clunie, J.
Lawson, G. M.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Coldrick, W.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Snow, J. W.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Lindgren, G. S.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cove, W. G.
Logan, D. G.
Steele, T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cronin, J. D.
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Stonehouse, John


Cullen, Mrs. A.
MacColl, J. E.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
McGovern, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McInnes, J.
Sylvester, G. O.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Deer, G.
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


de Freitas, Geoffrey
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Diamond, John
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dodds, N. N.
Mahon, Simon
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Dye, S.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thornton, E.


Edelman, M.
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Timmons, J.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Watkins, T. E.


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Wheeldon, W. E.


Finch, H. J.
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, Frederick


Foot, D. M.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, David (Neath)


Forman, J. C.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm,S.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Moss, R.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, A.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Grey, C. F.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Winterbottom, Richard


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hale, Leslie
Oram, A. E.
Woof, R. E.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Orbach, M.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Hamilton, W. W.
Oswald, T.
Zilliacus, K.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Owen, W. J.



Hastings, S.
Padley, W. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hayman, F. H.
Paget, R. T.
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons


Holmes, Horace
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 4, line 21, to leave out from "and" to "shall" in line 28, and to insert:
the authority shall comply with any direction given under this subsection.
(3) Where in the case of any premises—

(i) a new slaughterhouse licence in respect thereof has been granted in pursuance of a direction under the last foregoing subsection; or
(ii) those premises have under subsection (3) of the said section seventy-five been exempted from the operation of a resolution having effect under that section; or
(iii) since the passing of such a resolution as aforesaid a slaughterhouse licence in respect of those premises has been granted in the exercise of a power reserved for the local authority under the said subsection (3) as originally enacted,

the local authority".
This is another of these related Amendments to Clause 2. Hon. Members opposite have protested about their length and the amount of detail in them. I have already explained why they are in such involved form. We are, after all, trying to meet some of the criticisms made in Committee. In doing so, we are involving ourselves in further trouble with hon. Members opposite. Although we do our best, it is difficult to satisfy them completely.
This Amendment should certainly be welcomed by hon. Members opposite. It deletes certain parts which are consequential on earlier Amendments. Its main point is that it writes into the Bill the effect of Section 75 (4) of the 1955 Act, which in Committee we were frequently asked to do. I hope that this will be helpful to

(c) the authority are required to refuse the application by section five or (Isolation of slaughterhalls from dwellings) of this Act.


5
(4) Where any such subsequent application in respect of any premises as is referred to in the last foregoing subsection is refused otherwise than on the grounds specified in paragraph (b) or (c) of that subsection, any person having an interest in the premises or in any land held therewith, being an interest of which the value is reduced in consequence of the refusal, shall be entitled to be paid by the authority by way of compensation an amount equal to the reduction; and subsections (3), (4) and (6) of section seventy-eight of the principal Act shall apply for the purposes of compensation under this subsection as if any reference in those subsections to the said section seventy-eight were a reference to this subsection:


10



Provided that no such amount shall be payable if either—


15
(a) a previous application for the grant or renewal of a slaughterhouse licence in respect of those premises has been refused otherwise than on the grounds specified in the said paragraph (b) or (c) at a time when the last foregoing subsection or subsection (4) of section seventy-five of the principal Act applied thereto; or


20
(b) the use of those premises as a slaughterhouse has previously been terminated by virtue of a resolution under the said section seventy-five or of such a provision of a local Act as is mentioned in the next following subsection.


25
(4A) Where by virtue of any provision of a local Act a local authority have power to terminate the use of any premises as a slaughterhouse without the agreement of the occupier and otherwise than on the grounds of injury or danger to the public health, of nuisance, of the unsuitability of the premises, or of failure to make use of those premises as a slaughterhouse, the authority shall not exercise that power in relation to any premises except with the consent of the Minister given in accordance with subsection (5) of this section; and where that consent is so given, then, notwithstanding anything in that local Act, no other appeal shall lie against the exercise of that power.

hon. Members opposite. This will take the place of subsection (4) of Section 75. It is for this reason that we have these related Amendments, bcause the whole of Clause 2 goes into considerable detail about problems arising from resolutions under Section 75 and there is frequent reference to subsection (4).

The main purpose of this Amendment is to write the effect of Section 75 (4) into this Bill. I hope, therefore, that it will commend itself to the House, because it has been framed largely to meet criticisms raised in Committee.

Mr. Willey: I might be thought uncharitable if I did not say that this Amendment commends itself to us and that we are obliged to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for his lucid explanation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 4, line 32, to leave out "consented to the refusal" and to insert:
given his consent in accordance with subsection (5) of this section".
I hope that it will not be necessary for me to elaborate this Amendment at any length. Again it is a drafting Amendment, seeking to clarify the position so as to leave no doubt as regards references to subsection (5).

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 4, line 36, to leave out from the beginning to the end of line 20 on page 5 and to insert "or


This, again, is a substantial Amendment. To forestall the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), who will no doubt remind us of this fact, may I say that this Amendment rewrites subsection (4) which, he will no doubt tell us, we have already altered once in Committee. We have to do that, however, if we accept the writing of subsection (4) of Section 75 of the 1955 Act into this Bill. We have had to make substantial alterations. Previously we rewrote subsection (2) to take account of the fact that Section 75 (4) of the 1955 Act is now incorporated in this Bill. Now we have to bring in consequential Amendments. That is the purpose of subsection (4) as it appears in this Amendment.
We have also subsection (4A), which is a new provision but is a continuation of the point we discussed a short time ago in relation to local Acts. I said previously that we were incorporating one part there, another part here. So this Amendment is to some extent consequential on the debate we had a short time ago, and therefore I think the House will not wish me to detain them at any great length.
Those are the details of this long and cumbersome Amendment. Although it is largely drafting, when it is incorporated into the Bill, I hope it will make the Section easier to apprehend, though I sympathise with any difficulty which hon. Members may have in grasping it at the moment.

Mr. Willey: I am still sufficiently charitably disposed to say that I merely note that what appeared in the Bill was rewritten in Committee; it has now been rewritten on Report, and I assume that it will be rewriten in the various stages in another place and will eventually appear in a form lucrative to lawyers. I do not want to pursue the matter further on this Amendment. I understand that the first Amendment to the Amendment is being called, and it will be better to raise the point we have to raise when that Amendment is reached.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Question proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 8, after "entitled", to insert:
unless the Minister shall by order otherwise determine".
This Amendment deals with the provisions for compensation. This matter has been discussed in previous slaughterhouse legislation. I do not want to go too wide in my argument, but I should have thought that it was
accepted by everyone who is well versed in slaughterhouse matters that one of the important elements in improving slaughterhouse conditions is that of compensation. I do not see many Scotsmen present on the opposite benches, but one of the major reasons why a much more radical and effective reform was carried out in Scotland, as compared with England, was that Scotland had compensation provisions.
If local authorities are to bear the burden of providing for more orderly slaughterhouse provisions, and they also have to bear the burden of compensation, it will act as a deterrent. I do no more than call attention to what has happened in Scotland. It is for that reason that we put forward this very modest Amendment, and it is for that reason that we think there should be Ministerial discretion.
Although we do not alter our approach to the problem, we are not putting forward the straightforward argument that we put forward before. But we are saying that the Government should at any rate pay sufficient regard to Scottish experience and to the experience of other countries to recognise that it is right and proper to have more Ministerial discretion. I should have thought that the Government would not be reluctant to accept the Amendment. I shall be corrected if our draftsmanship is faulty, but I assume that our Amendment will allow the Minister power to allow either for a particular case or generally. We concede that there are possibilities of providing expressly and specifically for a particular case, but we are here dealing with a problem which is not so difficult as hon. Members would have us believe. We are dealing with slaughterhouses which were reopened in 1954.
People who, in 1954, reopened slaughterhouses which were completely inadequate by present standards, did


so with their eyes open. I concede at once that the people who opened the slaughterhouses were faced with the difficulties of decontrol. That was why we gave an easy passage to the Slaughterhouse Bill in 1954. But we should also assume that as the declared policy of the Government at that time was a policy of moderate concentration, those occupiers of slaughterhouses who reopened them in 1954 to meet the emergency did so with a short-term view as to the length of time in which they would be operated. I do not wish to provoke any wide argument about the merits of compensation. In general, we are committed to a policy of compensation where the public good overrides private interest. But I should have thought that we were entitled to measure the loss of private interest and what are the circumstances in which this loss is incurred. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will accept this modest Amendment in which we seek to afford him a measure of discretion which he can exercise if he thinks the circumstances justify it.

10.15 p.m.

Dr. Stross: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that we discussed the question of paying compensation twice. The hon. Gentleman thought that would be wrong and he said so during the Committee stage discussion. He said:
I have made it clear that there should not be double compensation …
He went on to say:
… but, on the other hand, I feel that a private slaughterhouse owner has some rights in this matter and it should be considered in this way."—[OFFICAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 6th February, 1958; c. 516.]
If a slaughterhouse has been in use for a long time, of course the owner should be paid compensation. But if, as my hon. Friend points out, a slaughterhouse was opened up again, after being closed as a result of the policy of concentration pursued during the war, and the owner did that knowing the risk, by and large, to pay compensation in the majority of such cases would, in my opinion, be paying twice. The Parliamentary Secretary and his right hon. Friend should explain to the House that it is not the intention to pay twice.
If this Amendment be accepted, the avoidance of double payment is left to the discretion of the Minister. We are not being categorical in our demand. In earlier discussions in Committee, we debated whether no compensation of any kind should be paid in all such cases and, of course, Scotland was quoted as an example. I am sure my hon. Friends agreed with me when I pointed out that the party on this side of the House is not interested in expropriation and is always prepared to pay fair compensation if a business is taken over because the overwhelming need of the State makes that desirable.
If the Minister accepts this Amendment, the discretion is his. We are being—the word "generous" is not an apt one—we are being fair in putting it in this way. We are saying to the Minister, "We want you to look at this. Surely there are some cases where you would feel it was a case of a double payment." The Parliamentary Secretary has gone on record as being against double payments. That is all we need to say about the matter. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he feels about it and whether he will accept that the discretion should be his.

Mr. Paget: Mr. Speaker has pointed out that this is not a Committee stage and, therefore, I apologise for putting a question which sounds like a Committee stage question, but the Notice Paper looks rather like a Committee stage Notice Paper. No doubt it is due to my own stupidity, but I find that in this amended or substituted subsection which we are in turn seeking to amend, it states
Where any such subsequent application in respect of any premises as is referred to in the last foregoing subsection is refused otherwise than on the grounds specified in paragraph (d) or (c) of that subsection …
What worries me is that there is a paragraph (b) in the foregoing subsection, but when I look back at the Amendment I find reference to (a) (b) and (c). Perhaps this is due to my denseness, but where does (c) come in?

Mr. Godber: I can quite understand the difficulty of the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) and I rather sympathise with him. In fact, (c) is a part of this Amendment and is in its first two lines. It brings in a reference to the proposed new Clause which my right hon. Friend moved earlier today. That is how it is incorporated.

Mr. Paget: I am most grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his explanation.

Mr. Godber: I am sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman must have found it difficult to follow. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) referred to double compensation. Perhaps he will recall that we sought to deal with this point in Committee and brought in an Amendment to cover it. I gave the hon. Gentleman an assurance that both in the Amendment and in the rewritten subsection (4) we had made it impossible for double compensation to take place. That is provided in the proviso in lines 13 to 20 of the Amendment. We realise that this was a valid point made in Committee.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) argued that the Minister should have power to see that no compensation should be paid in certain cases. We have not felt it right to do that. Where there is loss, compensation should be paid. I am not aware that hon. Gentlemen opposite all feel that there should not be compensation of some kind. Indeed, I seem to remember the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central saying in Committee that he was against confiscation without compensation.
It is right that we should make provision for compensation wherever there is compulsory closure, which takes place only in areas where there is a Section 75 Resolution, or a local Act. Those are the cases in which closures take place, and they are taking place on the basis that the local authority is providing its own slaughterhouse and wishes to concentrate the slaughtering in it. It is only right that losses of value should be compensated; we must accept that principle and provide for it.

Mr. J. T. Price: I have no very strong feeling about this matter because we thrashed it out very hard in Committee during recent months. I am wondering whether the Parliamentary Secretary would amplify a little his reference to double compensation. I am advised that many establishments that were reopened at the ending of control, and came back into production, were not compensated by a Government payment at all.
Many of these establishments, according to my information, received a revenue or income that was apportioned periodically for the loss of business sustained by the closing of these establishments during the wartime emergency. When we are dealing with compensation, I do not think that many hon. Members would like to envisage a position in which some continuing payment may be made in respect of these premises during the years of concentration, and which should now be in the position under the new legislation of claiming compensation a second time. It is in respect of that point that we should like a little further enlightenment.

Mr. Godber: That is rather a separate point. Of course, a number of these slaughterhouses which were closed during the war years, as I understand it, received certain compensation for loss of income during the war years. That compensation took place during a wartime emergency, and it was felt to be fair at that time that compensation for loss of revenue should take place. That is quite distinct from the compensation in this case, which is compensation for loss of capital value, in which the provision is that there would not be double compensation for loss of capital value by reason of the provision which we have written into this subsection. That is what we are now concerned with.
Hon. Members opposite, in Committee, stressed this point quite rightly, and said that if slaughterhouses had been closed and payment made under existing legislation, and, under this Bill, people were able to re-open their slaughterhouses, it was wholly wrong for a local authority to have the burden of paying compensation for a second time. That was the point which hon. Members made, and I entirely accepted it, and we have provided for it.
In this Amendment, hon. Members opposite are asking us not to pay compensation at all or to give the Minister discretion to refuse to pay compensation at all. We say that where there is loss of value, compensation should be paid if these premises are closed compulsorily. I made the point in Committee, and I think it is fair to make it again now, that in many cases the amount of compensation would not be large, by reason of the fact that so many of these premises are in


highly concentrated and built-up areas, sometimes rather disreputable places, where the site value would equal that of the slaughterhouse or not be far below. I quoted figures in Committee from one local authority area to bear that out. I am not saying there are not some areas where substantial and good slaughterhouses are closed, perhaps on the outskirts of a local authority area, where a substantial amount may have to be paid, but it is only fair and right that it should be paid in cases where there has been loss of capital value.
I think it would be wrong to accept the Amendment. It should be quite clear that, where slaughterhouses are closed in these circumstances, the owners should be entitled to compensation in some form, and for that reason I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. Robens: I do not think we have been convinced by what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, and I do not understand why he is not prepared to accept the words of our Amendment to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, because this is a permissive payment which the Minister shall by order determine. There must be some circumstances, and because of the lateness of the hour I will not describe any of them in detail, in which the Minister would determine that no compensation should be paid, and I should like to refer the hon. Gentleman to an extract from the De La Warr Report dealing with the matter in relation to Scotland, which was used by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) to illustrate a point in the Stand-

Division No. 96]
AYES
[10.31 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hayman, F. H.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Cullen, Mrs. A.
Herbison, Miss M.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Deer, G.
Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Howell, Denis (All Saints)


Awbery, S. S.
Diamond, John
Hoy, J. H.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Dodds, N. N.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Benson, Sir George
Dye, S.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Blackburn, F.
Fernyhough, E.
Hunter, A. E.


Boardman, H.
Finch, H. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Foot, D. M.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)


Bowles, F. G.
Forman, J. C.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Boyd, T. C.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Brockway, A. F.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pncs.S.)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Johnson, James (Rugby)


Burke, W. A.
Grey, C. F.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)


Champion, A. J.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)


Clunie, J.
Hamilton, W. W.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)


Coldrick, W.
Hannan, W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Cove, W. G.
Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
King, Dr. H. M.

ing Committee. The De La Warr Report stated:
Scottish local authorities enjoy a great advantage over local authorities in England and Wales by reason of the provisions of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892. Under that Act where any town council has established a slaughterhouse no other premises may be used for that purpose within the burgh, nor need any compensation be paid for the consequent closing of private slaughterhouses. This relieves local authorities from any financial anxiety when they wish to establish a public slaughterhouse.

We are not suggesting that no compensation should be paid in any case where the local authority opens a slaughterhouse, but if one goes into the evidence presented to the De la Warr Committee one sees the reasons why it came to that conclusion.

As I have said, as the hour is late I will not go into the circumstances, but it is clear that there are cases in which the Minister should determine that no compensation should be paid. I do not understand why the Minister is not prepared to take this power. It would be entirely up to him, on the cases submitted to him, whether or not he used that power. I have no doubt that it would be used with the utmost discretion, fairness and justice to all concerned.

It is important that the Minister should have the power, and I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to accept the Amendment. I think, therefore, that we had better divide on the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 131, Noes 178.

Lawson, G. M.
Oram, A. E.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Oswald, T.
Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Lindgren, G. S.
Owen, W. J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Logan, D. G.
Padley, W. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Paget, R. T.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


MacColl, J. E.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


McGhee, H. G.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


McInnes, J.
Pargiter, G. A.
Thornton, E.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Parkin, B. T.
Timmons, J.


MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Pearson, A.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Pentland, N.
Watkins, T. E.


Mahon, Simon
Popplewell, E.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Mainwaring, W. H.
Probert, A. R.
Willey, Frederick


Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Mann, Mrs. Jean
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Mason, Roy
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Winterbottom, Richard


Mitchison, G. R.
Ross, William
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)



Moss, R.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Moyle, A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Stonehouse, John





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Goodhart, Philip
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Gower, H. R.
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)


Alport, C. J. M.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Arbuthnot, John
Green, A.
Maddan, Martin


Armstrong, C. W.
Grimond, J.
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Ashton, H.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Mathew, R.


Atkins, H. E.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mawby, R. L.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.


Baldwin, A. E.
Gurden, Harold
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Balniel, Lord
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Barber, Anthony
Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Barter, John
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Oakshott, H. D.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Bishop, F. P.
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Black, C. W.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Page, R. G.


Body, R. F.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Bonham-Carter, Capt. M. R.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Partridge, E.


Bowen, E. R. (Cardigan)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Peel, W. J.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Holt, A. F.
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hornby, R. P.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Braine, B. R.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pitman, I. J.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Powell, J. Enoch


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bryan, P.
Hutchison, Michael Clark(E'b'gh, S.)
Ramsden, J. E.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hyde, Montgomery
Redmayne, M.


Carr, Robert
Iremonger, T. L.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Channon, Sir Henry
Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Rippon, A. G. F.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Cooke, Robert
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kaberry, D.
Sharples, R. C.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Keegan, D.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kershaw, J. A.
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Cunningham, Knox
Kimball, M.
Storey, S.


Currie, G. B. H.
Kirk, P. M.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Dance, J. C. G.
Lambton, Viscount
Studholme, Sir Henry


Davidson, Viscountess
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Summers, Sir Spencer


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Leburn, W. G.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Deedes, W. F.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Teeling, W.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Temple, John M.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Duncan, Sir James
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Elliott,R.W.(Ne'castle upon Tyne.N.)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Longden, Gilbert
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Finlay, Graeme
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fisher, Nigel
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Vane, W. M. F.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Vickers, Miss Joan


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Gibson-Watt, D.
McKibbin, Alan
Wall, Patrick


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)


Godber, J. B.
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)







Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Mr. Wills and


Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
Woollam, John Victor
Mr. Chichester-Clark

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 5, line 23, to leave out from the beginning to "that" in line 26 and to insert:
by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of this section or to the exercise in relation to any premises of such a power as is mentioned in subsection (4A) of this section, the local authority shall serve on the applicant, or, as the case may be, on the person who holds a slaughterhouse licence in respect of those premises, notice in writing".
This Amendment is purely consequential and drafting. It takes up two

"if, after considering any representation so made to him, he is both—



(a) satisfied that the grant or renewal of that licence, or, as the case may be, the continued use of those premises as a slaughterhouse, is unnecessary for the purpose of securing adequate slaughterhouse facilities; and


5
(b) not satisfied that that grant, renewal or continued use is expedient for special reasons,



shall give, and in any other case shall refuse, his consent.


10
(6) Where a local authority such as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section receive an application for the grant or renewal of a slaughterhouse licence in respect of any premises which is neither an application for the grant of a new slaughterhouse licence nor an application to which subsection (3) of this section applies, the authority shall refuse the application forthwith if—



(a) the grant of renewal is precluded by a resolution for the time being having effect under section seventy-five or section seventy-six of the principal Act; or


15
(b) by virtue of such a provision of a local Act as is mentioned in the said subsection (1), the use of the premises as a slaughterhouse would be unlawful notwithstanding the grant or renewal of the licence.



(7) As from the date of the passing of this Act—


20
(a) the following provisions of the principal Act shall cease to have effect, that is to say—



(i) in subsection (3) of section seventy-five, except in relation to a resolution under that section passed before the date aforesaid, the words from 'and may' to 'licence' and the words 'or reservation';



(ii) subsection (4) of section seventy-five;


25
(iii) subsection (2) of section seventy-eight;


30
(b) where the operation of any such provision of a local Act as is mentioned in subsection (1) or subsection (4A) of this section is dependent upon the provision of a slaughterhouse and at the date aforesaid that slaughterhouse has not been provided or has ceased to be used as such, that provision of that local Act shall cease to have effect."

I come now to the last of the really long Amendments to Clause 2. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will be glad to hear that. This Amendment deals with three separate points. The first takes up a point we discussed earlier, which is really the A.M.C. Amendment in relation to the Minister's discretion and we have almost repeated the same wording here. We are seeking to clarify the position in relation to the Minister's discretion and to tie it in both ways, as we sought to do earlier.

points. One is the alteration from the reference to Section 75, which now becomes reference to subsection (3) of this Clause, and the other brings in the reference to subsection (4A) to which we have recently agreed.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, to leave out from "Minister" to the end of line 15 in page 6, and to insert:
The second point is quite a narrow one. It is intended to correct an anomaly in the Bill. This relates to a very small section of cases which could have been left outside the net of Section 75 resolutions. It tries to draw in cases where there is an application in respect of premises where the previous licence expired within twelve months of the new application, to make quite sure that these cases are brought within the scope of a Section 75 resolution. If there is this outstanding application, I am advised that at present, under the reading of a


Section 75 resolution, they would be able automatically to obtain a further licence. It was not intended that that should be so. This Amendment is to make quite clear that all cases are covered whether an application for a new licence is in or not.
The third part of the Amendment deals with certain consequential deletions following Amendments that we have already agreed to. This is a rather long and rather complicated Amendment but, in the main, it is consequential, and, in fact, brings out no new question of principle at all.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Willey: The Parliamentary Secretary has been rather modest in referring to this massive Amendment. It is, as he knows, an Amendment of an Amendment. In Committee, we considered an Amendment of over 20 lines and were assured that it made the Bill more intelligible. We now have one running to 30 lines to replace it. This is making a farce of Parliament, and something must be done about it.
As Members of Parliament we all recognise that we are handicapped if we have to discuss Bills which are remarkably obscure to lawyers, but our work becomes aboslutely impossible if we are presented in Committee with an Amendment running to over 20 lines and then, when we come to the House on Report, have an Amendment running to 30 lines. It is no good the Patronage Secretary looking worried. This is a matter in which we should speak up for the rights of Members.
I call the Patronage Secretary's attention to the fact—I have already called the attention of the House to it—that we received 5½ pages of Amendments on one day; 3½ pages of Amendments the next day, amending those, and, a day after, sundry Amendments amending the Amendments. It makes it extraordinarily difficult for us to carry out our work. Though they have had the advantage of hearing the Parliamentary Secretary explaining it, I challenge any hon. Member opposite to tell us what this Amendment does.
The hon. Gentleman told us that, in part, it is consequential on some matters that have been dealt with in the Rill pursuant to discussion in Committee, but he also says that it deals with a very

complex matter of some anomalies arising under Section 75 of the principal Act. I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary when he explained those to us, and I say again what I remember saying on a very complicated Amendment that we once considered on the Finance Bill; that if we are to receive Amendments like this we shall also have to receive Explanatory Memoranda.
I object to the House of Commons being asked to legislate blindly, without understanding the legislation that it is enacting. What assurance have we—I put it quite simply, and I defy anyone, including the Minister to give it—that this will not be further amended in another place? None at all. It has been amended each time it has been considered, whether by the House or by Standing Committee or on Report, and I think that we can anticipate that this massive Amendment will be further amended when it is considered in another place; that is, if the Government anticipate that there will be lively interest shown there.
The simple fact is that we have shown a lively interest in this Bill, and we make no apology for it. But, in consequence of our showing a lively interest in the Bill, we find that Clause 2, running into 2½ pages is almost entirely rewritten. So far as it is not rewritten, it is more misleading than if it had been rewritten. We have pages of Government Amendments, and we are told that they are not drafting Amendments; they are more than that. They are to meet some anomaly. Having heard the Parliamentary Secretary, I still do not know what the anomaly is.
I vigorously object to this confusing way of dealing with these matters in the House and affecting other legislation at the same time. It should be remembered that we are here legislating by reference. On an earlier Amendment the Parliamentary Secretary said that he was endeavouring to go some way to meet us, but we found that he had not only amended the provisions in the principal Act to meet us but he had made another Amendment, for his own frivolous entertainment, possibly, which affected matters further. As I said then, I do not know what is being done; one has to study the principal Act to find out the consequences which these things have on other provisions in the Act.
We have here this massive Amendment referring to Sections of the principal Act. What effect it really has, we do not know. We are asked to accept it on trust. That is what it comes to. We have had Amendments to Amendments, but we have had no explanation of what their effect is. We were left to guess. We are told incidentally—just as, in connection with previous Amendments, there have been other hidden points—that this deals with an anomaly we discovered arising under Section 75. I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Philip Bell) wants to remove that anomaly, or whether he wants it to remain.

Mr. Philip Bell: I have got the point. I understand what the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) is talking about.

Mr. Wiley: I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman for following me. Apparently, it is much easier to follow what I am saying than to follow what the Parliamentary Secretary says, or what is provided for in the Amendment.
This is bringing two things about, both of which are quite serious. First, it is bringing our discussions into contempt. Secondly, it causes a lot of needless worry and anxiety amongst slaughtermen and occupiers of slaughterhouses, which could be avoided if the Government were prepared to deal with their legislation properly. I make no great point of it, for we have on both sides of the House complained about legislation by reference, but this is really legislation by reference reduced to an absurdity. It is so uncertain. The Parliamentary Secretary could not assure us that this would be the last of the Amendments. This succession of Amendments has shown that this is a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter.
An impossible burden is put upon the House. Some of us can read these things with great care and then find that we have deceived ourselves into believing that we understood Amendments we agreed to in Standing Committee. We have to be modest enough to know that, if we think we comprehend the present

Amendment, we may similarly be mistaken, as the Parliamentary Secretary was mistaken and as the draftsmen were mistaken. This is the terrifying thing about it.
Why is the Bill being presented in this way? Were the Government so short of legislation at the beginning of the Session that, to everyone's surprise, they put the Slaughterhouses Bill into the Queen's Speech and then found that it had not been prepared, but, having no other legislation ready, they put an impossible task on the Department? We should have an explanation. It is really quite intolerable that we should be asked to do things in this way.
As Mr. Speaker pointed out to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) on an earlier Amendment, we are not in Committee now. But, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out to the House, if one looked at the Notice Paper, one would assume that we were at the Committee stage. I conceded on an earlier Amendment that I would not pursue the point, because we were not in Committee, but the questions that arose by way of the Minister's Amendment raised Committee points. It is thoroughly unsatisfactory that the House, on Report, should be faced with Amendments like these, which are difficult enough in themselves to understand, and amending Amendments which, in turn, were as difficult to understand and which amended provisions in a Bill which were equally unintelligible.

Mr. Paget: I really feel that the House has a grievance with regard to the Bill. The first thing that strikes me is how much we are indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for the industry with which he has conducted our affairs. This is the sort of Bill which might almost have gone through "on the nod". I have an uncomfortable feeling that probably we have absentmindedly let through "on the nod" quite a few Bills as bad as this, but when one comes to examine the Bill, as the Government acknowledge—that is what all these Amendment were about—it was in a state in which it would have been quite scandalous to put it on the Statute Book.
Some years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Hale),


Mr. Geoffrey Bing and myself busied ourselves by looking at Government legislation in some detail. We found what a muddle it often was.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): It may have been an awful muddle, but this Amendment was not there.

Mr. Paget: I was seeking to indicate that Amendments of this complexity demonstrate how badly these Government Measures appear to be drafted and how much they give cause for anxiety. As for this Amendment which has got on to the Notice Paper, I suggest that it is perhaps time for us to say that it has gone far enough. When a Government find, in Committee, that they have made this sort of mess of a Bill, surely they ought to begin again. To try to patch and patch and use, not a Committee, but the House, for this patching purpose is an abuse of the procedure of this House which is not adopted for this eminently Committee task.
Let us look at the Amendment, the meaning and need for which, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, have never been explained to us, and ask a few questions about it. To begin with, the words of subsection (5) which we are asked to omit are these:
shall, before determining whether or not to consent to the refusal, consider any representations so made to him and shall not consent to the refusal unless in the opinion of the Minister the grant or renewal is unnecessary for the purpose of securing adequate slaughterhouse facilities.
That is what we are asked to take out, and we are asked to insert:
if, after considering any representation so made to him, he is both—

(a) satisfied that the grant or renewal of that licence, or, as the case may be, the continued use of those premises as a slaughterhouse, is unnecessary for the purpose of securing adequate slaughterhouse facilities: and
(b) not satisfied that the grant, renewal or continued use is expedient for special reasons,

shall give, and in any other case shall refuse his consent.
11.0 p.m.
What is the difference between those two? In what case, if we left the words as they are, would a Minister refuse, and, if we changed the words, make a grant? And in what case, if we left the words as they are, would he make a grant,

and, if we changed the words, would he refuse? Can the Minister tell us why he is asking us to change them and to substitute rather more words? If there are not cases in which a grant is converted into a refusal or a refusal is converted into a grant by these words, what are we changing? He has given us no indication so far.
Again, we come to Clause 2 (6), which reads:
Where in the case of any resolution for the time being having effect under section seventy-five or section seventy-six of the principal Act or in the case of, or of any instrument made under, any local Act providing for the prohibition or restriction of private slaughterhouses—
Then it goes on to these various groups:
then, without prejudice to the validity of any licence granted or renewed before the passing of this Act or to the validity of the remainder of that resolution, local Act or instrument, that nower shall not be exercisable, notwithstanding …
and we are given an even longer version:
Where a local authority such as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section receive an application for the grant or renewal of a slaughterhouse licence …
Did they not have to receive an application before? Do they now? What is the difference that is made? The fundamental question here is the granting or refusal of licences. Where does this make a licence available where it was not available before, and where does it stop a licence being available which was available before? If the Minister does not understand what this is about and cannot tell us, is it not time that they had further thoughts and produced another Bill next Session?

Mr. Robens: Listening to the Minister, I found myself in much the same position as other hon. Members—that while he indicated the vast mass of Amendments, he did not explain what this Amendment meant. When we are really dealing with references to the main Act it makes it extremely difficult for us to see precisely what we are doing by this Amendment.
It must be remembered that this subsection was amended in the Standing Committee and, naturally, we examined the Bill in the light of that Amendment. As that was a Government Amendment we did not expect that it would he required to be changed again. But now we have an Amendment amending the Standing Committee Amendment to the


original words. On a matter that demands a good deal of legal knowledge, because of these references to the principal Act, it seems wrong that a Law Officer of the Crown is not present to advise us and explain in detail how this Amendment effects the principal Act.
I cannot go back on what happened in the Standing Committee, but the House should know that the Government left the Parliamentary Secretary entirely on his own to deal with the Bill. At no time did he have any assistance from the Law Officers of the Crown, or from other Government Departments whose interests were at stake, like the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour. The Parliamentary Secretary did a magnificent job, but he was faced with tremendous difficulties. He was asked to explain legal matters without any assistance from the Law Officers of the Crown.

Mr. Hayman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that during the Committee stage discussions of the Land Powers (Defence) Bill no fewer than five Ministers of the Crown were present, including the Solicitor-General?

Mr. Robens: That may be true. Thank goodness, I was not on that Committee. I am saying that we are entitled to have the Law Officers of the Crown present to deal with this matter. The Standing Committee was denied the assistance of the Law Officers, and we are being denied that assistance now. May I ask the Minister whether he is prepared to explain to us precisely what this Amendment does, and how it differs from the Amendment which was accepted in the Standing Committee? Is it necessary that we should have this fairly long Amendment, which would require careful examination and upon which we should want some legal advice? This matter of licensing and compensation is complicated enough. The principal Act has a whole Section devoted to it, laying out in detail the method by which compensation should be paid. It seems wrong that the Government should bring forward an Amendment now without any explanation. We do not want an explanation of the first Amendment and the original words in the Bill. We had that during our Committee discussions, when we spend several hours amending the Bill at the request of the Government. We are

entitled to know what is the difference in detail between this Amendment and the one we accepted in Committee.

Mr. Godber: I will endeavour to deal with the points which have been raised. I am sorry hon. Members feel that I did not make the position abundantly clear. It is a complicated matter, and it is difficult to explain in a short time. I apologise if I spoke too briefly on the previous occasion, but I did not want to detain the House longer than I considered necessary to explain these provisions.
They largely repeat what we have already done in an earlier Amendment, and I thought that the House did not wish me to go over the ground again; but I will try to answer the points which have been raised. The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) asked a number of questions in relation to the new subsection (5) as it appears on the Paper. As hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee will know well, this was a point discussed at some length in relation to amendments put forward by the Association of Municipal Corporations which wished to limit the discretion of the Minister. The existing words in subsection (5) are that
… the Minister shall, before determining whether or not to consent to the refusal, consider any representations so made to him and shall not consent to the refusal unless in the opinion of the Minister the grant or renewal is unnecessary …
I would draw attention to the words "shall not consent to the refusal". So, the Minister was limited in one respect; but in the re-wording we have tried to take the point that the Minister's discretion should be limited in both ways. We have stated the two reasons. If hon. Members look at the proposed Amendment, they will see it stated that,
if, after considering any representation so made to him, he is both—

(a) satisfied that the grant or renewal of that licence, or, as the case may be, the continued use of those premises as a slaughterhouse, is unnecessary for the purpose of securing adequate slaughterhouse facilities; and
(b) not satisfied that that grant, renewal or continued use is expedient for special reasons.

shall give, and in any other case shall refuse, his consent".
We have, in fact, turned the discretion so that the Minister shall give his consent in certain circumstances, but in all other cases shall refuse his consent.
That is what we undertook to do in the Standing Committee. I had not gone into the matter in detail, because I wanted to be brief; it was not because of any desire to be discourteous.
Now we come to subsection (6). Here again, we have completely rewritten the wording, and the purpose, as I tried to indicate when I spoke earlier this evening, is that we are trying to tighten up this Clause. On consideration of the wording, despite the Amendment we had made in the Standing Committee, it appeared that there would be certain cases which were outside the scope of this Clause as amended in Committee.
We are dealing at this time solely with problems in relation to cases where the Minister's consent has been required for the operation of Section 75 or 76, or of Local Act provisions. There are a relatively small number of cases coming forward, but the wording as it is in the Bill at present would not cover an application for a licence in respect of premises where the previous licence had ceased within twelve months.
That is the anomaly to which I referred. A subsequent provision of this Bill reserves the position of a licence holder whose licence has expired in twelve months and who is entitled to get a licence automatically on application. But we realise that in these cases, unintentionally, there could be some where, simply because a licence had lapsed, the applicant could not, because of Clause 1 (2), be prevented from getting a fresh licence. That is what we have sought to cover in the fresh wording of the subsection. Subsection (7) states the provisions which are to cease to have effect and is straightforward.
11.15 p.m.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) criticised the Government very much because of the massive Amendments we have brought forward, but most of them are to meet the criticisms made by hon. Members opposite in Committee. They disliked some of the legislation by reference. The operation has been complicated, but I believe that the final effect on the Bill will be better. While I never weary of welldoing, I am disappointed that our efforts have not had the approval of hon. Members Opposite.

Mr. Willey: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his further explanation. My criticisms were directed to the massive Amendments which are interspersed with pieces of the original Bill. If, in future, the Government are presented with such a situation and with such complicated Amendments, we ought to have an explanation when the Amendments raise new points. The responsible Department ought to have an opportunity to satisfy us on points like these.
When I criticised the Amendments I took them as a whole. There are 30 lines in this massive Amendment. We should be able to get discussion whenever a complicated Measure such as that is one is before us.

Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill, put and negatived.

Question proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in line I, to leave out "so made to him" and to insert:
whether made to him in writing or made before a person appointed by the Minister".
This is a self-evident Amendment. The Government may think that it is unnecessary, but if it is unnecessary and is not objectionable it would be far better to accept it.

Mr. Godber: This matter was discussed in Committee. The hon. Member will agree that it relates only to a small point and I do not think he will press it very strongly. I have given very careful thought to it, and I have been advised that, particularly on legal grounds, it is preferable to retain the original wording. It is not usual to specify the manner in which representations or objections are to be made. There is a danger that in writing one one might unintentionally restrict the method of representation to the Minister. These words appear to be perfectly harmless. They say:
whether made to him in writing or made before a person appointed by the Minister.
But there are possibilities that there could be some other way of making representations to the Minister which might be overlooked. There might, perhaps, be an urgent telephone message which might not be covered. It is purely for that reason that we do not accept the Amendment. I give the administrative assurance that we would accept representations


made in writing, and the last thing we want to do is to restrict anyone making representations. As I say, that is the only reason for not accepting the Amendment.

Mr. Dye: The Parliamentary Secretary said that he had received legal advice on these words. From whom? Are we not entitled to know, if the Parliamentary Secretary received legal advice, where it came from, whether it came from the Law Officers or from some of his own back bench Q.Cs.? After all, some of us spent twenty-four sittings in Committee and never had a Law Officer present.
The Parliamentary Secretary admits that he has had legal advice on an Amendment to an Amendment which had previously come from the same source. If the source was tainted, how do we know that it is really better now than it was at the beginning? What source of legal advice has the Parliamentary Secretary at last received and why cannot the legal luminary involved come to the House and give the advice himself from the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Godber: I would merely say that the legal advice I have received is that of my own legal advisers in the Department, which I am fully entitled to take at any time. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should resent my taking that advice. I should have thought that he would be glad that I had done so.

Mr. Hayman: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) in what he has said. It may be very well for the Parliamentary Secretary to get legal advice from his own Department, but we are lay Members of the House of Commons. If the Government could put up five Ministers, including the Solicitor-General, for the Land Powers Defence Bill, I think that we might have had at least one Law Officer present at one sitting during the whole of the proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. Wiley: In Standing Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary said that if the Committee wished he would try to seek words. I only wish that he had sought advice about that, for then we might have got something. I did not very much like his reaction to this proposal. I should have thought that any Minister would like some defence against representations being made in some

peculiar or exceptional way. He might, for instance, be stopped in the street and have representations made to him in that way. I am only trying to help the Minister, but if he will not be helped then, rather than embarrass him, I will beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Proposed words there inserted in the sill.

Clause 3.—(REPORTS ON SLAUGHTERHOUSE FACILITIES.)

Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 6, line 16, at the end to insert:
after consultation with such organisations as appear to the authority to represent the interests concerned".
We got into trouble last time for using rather a lot of words partially to try to assist the Opposition in getting some of the things they had put forward with great force in Committee inserted in the Bill. In this Amendment, I think that in a few words I am fulfilling an undertaking given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in Committee. I think it was the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) who then moved an Amendment to the effect that there should be consultation by the local authorities with local interests before submitting their slaughterhouse reports to the Ministers.
I think we all agree that good local authorities—and most local authorities are good—would certainly consult local interests about these important issues which will have to be set out in their reports, and in particular about the dates which they recommend should be fixed when the new regulations should apply to all slaughterhouses in their districts. Local interests would include such people as meat traders, workers in slaughterhouses, owners of slaughterhouses, and so on. We all entirely agree that it is right, although most local authorities would do this, that local authorities should be under obligation to do it. After all, the Minister himself is being put under an obligation to consult. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will be welcome to both sides of the House.
This may not please hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, because they did not agree with my reasoning before, but we


are once again not attempting to list the organisations which should be consulted by local authorities. I do not want to go into great detail now about this, but we certainly think that to set out in a Bill a list of those who might be concerned would cause difficulties. Any omission from the list would be bound to be invidious, and there might possibly be a local
authority which would consult only those
interests specifically mentioned and not look beyond them. This omission may disappoint hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I certainly undertake in circulars to local authorities to name all interests concerned which I think, looking at the position today, they should consult. I hope that, with that assurance, this Amendment may be accepted.

Mr. Robens: I appreciate very much the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has put forward this Amendment, which appeals to us. I can readily see the reasons why he could not in these circumstances put down the list of interested parties whom the local authorities ought to consult. There is a difference between the last discussion we had on listing the parties who might be consulted, and this discussion, because those were interested parties whom the Minister had to consult. There is a big difference between the Minister's binding himself and his successors to consult certain parties, and interested parties whom he may not have mentioned, and specifying in the Bill the parties whom the local authorities should consult.
One sees immediately there would be great difficulties in doing that. Some local authorities will have in their areas organisations which they can consult quite readily to get the kind of advice they need in making these reports. In smaller areas it may well be that there are not the same organisations available to consult. I myself have no objection to the fact that the Minister is not able to put in this list of organisations.
What, however, endears this Amendment to me is the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, when he said he would give some advice to the local authorities as to the parties whom he as Minister thinks they should consult if they are available. I hope he will make mention of the fact that for many years now there has been an excellent organisa-

tion, the joint industrial council for the meat trade, which represents both the organised workers and the employers in the industry, and which has district representatives who would be readily available for consultation. They are all men of great experience in the industry, who have given much public service in a voluntary way and would continue to do so. There are also the consumer interests which must be recognised. I have no doubt that the local authorities feel they can express them.
I welcome the Amendment and particularly welcome that the right hon. Gentleman has indicated that he will do his best to produce a list of organisations he thinks a local authority might consult it there are representatives of it in the area.

Amendment agreed to.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 6, line 36 to leave out from "1954" to the end of line 39.
Since this is purely consequential on an Amendment we had in Committee when events overtook us somewhat in relation to Clause 6, it is not one on which I need detain the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 40, leave out "or an order".—[Mr. Godber.]

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned.
I think this is an appropriate time to ask the Government what their intentions are in regard to the present consideration of the Bill.

Mr. Hare: I think we ought to try to make a little more progress. We are not doing too badly. We are considering a very important Bill and I think some more time ought to be spent on it. I shall not press too hard, but I think we can get on a little further.

Mr. Wiley: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that we are commending ourselves to him. It is a question now of how little is "little" It might suit the convenience of the House if the right hon. Gentleman would indicate that.

Mr. Hare: I suggest it is not unreasonable that we should get to the end of Clause 5.

Mr. Willey: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4.—(GRANT OF NEW SLAUGHTERHOUSE LICENCES AFTER SUBMISSION OF REPORT.)

Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 9, line 23, to leave out "or deemed to be included".
It might be convenient also to discuss the next Amendment.
These Amendments are further changes to try to make the Bill a little easier to understand, which I think should receive the sympathy of both sides of the House. I do not think it was clear from a first reading what the phrase "or deemed to be included" referred to. The point was raised in Committee and the Joint Parliamentary Secretary undertook to see whether it could be made clearer.

Mr. Wiley: I merely rise to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the steps he has taken. In Committee we suggested that the subsection was open to misconstruction. I agree that, as amended, it will be less open to misconstruction.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 9, line 25, at end insert:
or deemed by virtue of subsection (3) or subsection (6) of that section to be so included".—[Mr. Hare.]
In page 10, line 5, leave out from "Minister" to end of line 14 and insert:

(a) if he is not satisfied that the grant of the licence is necessary for the purpose of securing adequate slaughterhouse facilities or expedient for special reasons, shall direct the authority to refuse the application forthwith; or
(b) if he is satisfied as aforesaid, shall inform the local authority and the applicant that he approves the application;

and the local authority shall comply with any direction given under paragraph (a) of this subsection.—[Mr. Godber.]

Clause 5.—(SPECIAL GROUNDS FOR. AND APPEALS AGAINST, CERTAIN REFUSALS.)

Amendments made: In page 10, line 19, leave out:
or deemed to be included.
In line 21, after "Act," insert:
or deemed by virtue of subsection (3) or subsection (6) of that section to be so included".—[Mr. Hare.]

In line 24, after "grant", insert "or renewal".—[Mr. Godber.]

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, at the end to insert:
or ceases to be in force on or after that date".
This Amendment very slightly extends the effect, and its purpose again is to clarify the position and to make sure that all the cases are included that it is the intention to include.

Mr. Willey: My only difficulty here is that we are aware that the Government previously had an Amendment down at the end to insert:
or is still in force at that date.
That was the Government's previous suggestion, and it seems very different from the present Amendment. They say that instead of
or is still in force at that date
we should say
or ceases to be in force on or after that date.
That calls for an explanation. I must say that I felt satisfied with the explanation I heard, but it seems a little difficult to reconcile the two proposals of the Government.

Mr. Godber: I have not with me the previous Amendment to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I think that on consideration he will agree that the two mean the same thing. As I say, I have not before me the words of the previous Amendment——

Mr. Speaker: The question is not really before us, so it is not appropriate at all.

Mr. Godber: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I will merely say that, in fact, the words
or ceases to be in force on or after that date
and "or after that date" really embrace the same point, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will realise that this Amendment includes the intention of the previous one, but, as Mr. Speaker said, I must not go further into that. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the intention is there. It is to meet the same point in a different form of words.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Willey: I beg to move, in page 10, line 30, to leave out "twelve" and to insert "six".
This Amendment endeavours to limit the length of the period. It was considered in Committee, and, quite frankly, we are


disappointed that the Government have not been able to come a certain way to meet us. We thought that, if they were not entirely persuaded by our arguments in favour of six months rather than twelve, they would at any rate go so far as to put in an Amendment to provide for, say, nine months. This was the sort of matter on which we could have struck such a compromise. While I expect the Government to resist this present Amendment, I hope that, though they may feel adament about it at the moment, they will look at the matter again and try to reduce the period.

Mr. Robens: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Hare: Much as I should like to please the hon. Member for Sunderland. North (Mr. Willey), and he does, as it were, dangle the fly of nine months in front of me. I must assure him that we did look at this but I cannot really advise the House to accept his Amendment. I know that it was raised in Committee, but a period of only six months would be too short for the purpose of the Clause
Everybody agrees, of course, that a time limit is necessary. We do not want unreasonable delay. But the preparations for the building of a slaughterhouse take some time. It may be a large building or a small one, a building costing, perhaps, £20,000 or a building costing up to £200,000. Preparations even for the smaller type of building inevitably take some time, in the preparing of plans, securing planning consents, preparing detailed working drawings, applications for byelaw consents, preparation of bills of quantities, and so on. These are all matters which can easily take up to a year or even more to complete in the case of a big slaughterhouse.
There would really be no point in permitting refusal of a licence after so short a period as six months, because it would be too difficult at that stage for a local authority to tell whether or not an applicant was really in earnest. If refusals were made by local authorities in that way, there would probably be many quite unnecessary appeals to the courts against refusals.
I saw what was said in Committee, and I listened to the short explanation which the hon. Gentleman gave. Quite frankly, I do not think that anything would be gained by reducing the period

to six months. Some local authorities might be satisfied by evidence that work was in progress merely on the drawing board, but others might well consider that they wanted to sec something more concrete than that taking place. I suggest that a year is the right time to take.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Robens: I do not quite follow the right hon. Gentleman's argument, because it is not automatic at the end of six months that a licence would be revoked so that people could not continue with their preparations. It depends upon whether, in the first place,
there has been unreasonable delay on the part of the applicant in making progress with the preparation of the premises for use as a slaughterhouse".
The argument whether it is a big slaughterhouse or a small one would not apply.
The next condition is
That the applicant will be unable, or has abandoned his intention, to use those premises as a slaughterhouse.
If he has abandoned his intention and has done so within six months, that seems to me to be a reasonable time to strike him off the list, so to speak. Obviously, "unreasonable delay" would relate to somebody who had made no effort whatever to build the slaughterhouse for which the licence had been granted. Surely, when the matter is in the hands of reasonable people—local authorities and the Ministry—six months would seem to be sufficient. There is all the safeguard for the eventualities that the Minister suggested.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, in page 10, line 34, to leave out from "slaughterhouse" to "or" in line 37 and to insert:
under the licence or renewed licence, either—

(i) that the applicant has failed to take reasonable steps to secure the making of progress with the preparation of the premises for such use".

I am glad to be able to move the Amendment, which takes up a valid point made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) in Committee, when I promised to look into it. I have sought to find words to meet his case and at the same time to give adequate security to the applicant. The wording
that the applicant has failed to take reasonable steps
meets the point that the hon. Member had in mind. I therefore commend the Amendment to the House.

Mr. Willey: I rise only to thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for the steps which the Government have taken and to say without hesitation that the Amendment improves the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hare: I beg to move, in page 11, line 1, to leave out from "The" to "shall" in line 9 and to insert:
document notifying the refusal of an application under the foregoing subsection or under subsection (1) of section (Isolation of slaughter-halls from dwellings) of this Act, shall state the grounds therefor, and the applicant may appeal against the refusal to a magistrates' court, and that court, if satisfied that the local authority acted unreasonably in refusing the application on those grounds, may declare the refusal to be of no effect; and sections one hundred and seventeen and one hundred and eighteen of the principal Act shall apply for the purposes of any appeal under this subsection as if this subsection were contained in that Act.
(3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) of this section, no appeal to a magistrates' court".
This Amendment is the result of our consideration of points that were made in Committee. We are dealing here with appeals against the refusal of a licence by a local authority because the applicant has not got on with the job of getting the slaughterhouse ready. We originally provided for an appeal to the Minister, as in certain other cases, but such was the eloquence of the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and others that we thought we were wrong and that this was a case where the appeal would be more appropriately directed to a court of law. As the hon. Member pointed out in Committee, the issues to be decided are issues of fact and not of policy. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree that this is a wise Amendment and is in general line with the principles that have been accepted on both sides of the House.
The same consideration seems to apply to the refusal of a licence because a slaughterhouse is not separated from a dwellinghouse. Therefore, in this case also we are providing for appeal to the courts. This also is a question of fact.
I had hoped that our proposal would appeal to the hon. Member for Sunderland, North, but to my horror I see that he has tabled two Amendments to it. It was his eloquence which persuaded us to move as we have done and I only hope that he will accept my Amendment and not press his own.

Mr. Willey: Again, I am obliged to the Government, for this Amendment arises out of some philosophic observations which I made on the Clause stand part. I do not intend to move the Amendments standing in my name on the Paper, for my heart would not be in them if I did. But I thought it right to put them down and call the attention of the House to what was being done, because I think this is a question, particularly in the light of the Franks Report, for the House to decide whether a matter should be for decision in a judicial tribunal or an administrative tribunal, or whether it should be left to the discretion of the Minister. I am obliged to the Government for changing their view and accepting this. My view was that this was a question of fact and should be left to the magistrates.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 11, leave out lines 15 and 16 and insert:
(d) with the consent of the Minister given by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (3) of the said section two;
(e) in pursuance of subsection (6) of the said section two.
In page 11, line 18, at end insert:
or
(f) in pursuance of subsection (1) of section (Isolation of slaughterhalls from dwellings) of this Act".—[Mr. Godber.]

Further consideration of the Bill, as amended, adjourned.—[Mr. Hare.]

Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee), to be further considered Tomorrow.

CAR PARKING (SCHOOL EXITS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

11.54 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I wish to draw attention to the danger of vehicles parking outside school exits and to draw the attention of the House to a report which was made on this subject by a road safety committee as long ago as 1936. It was a report of the Interdepartmental Committee on Road Safety among Schoolchildren, and in Recommendation No. 19 it stated that
commercial vehicles or motor cars should not stand in the immediate vicinity of school exits.


It made that recommendation on a finding which appears in paragraph 53 of chapter 6 of the report. After saying,
Anything which tends to obscure the view of the children militates against their safety on the roads
the Committee went on to say,
For the same reason cars or vans should not habitually be left standing at such points".
In short, the Committee, as long ago as 1936, thought that this practice of parking vehicles outside school exits was a dangerous practice which should be stopped. I understand that almost every Continental country takes the same view, and we are about the only country where one can park one's car in front of a school exit. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that this is a dangerous practice. This principle of danger from the obscuring of the vision where people are likely to cross has already been recognised in the regulations about pedestrian crossings. I refer to the studs at the approaches to pedestrian crossings. When vehicles park outside school exits there is the same danger, namely, from the impetuosity of the children in running out into the road between the parked vehicles.
The matter could be dealt with under Section 50 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. Under that Section it is an offence to leave a vehicle in a dangerous place. But nothing has been done and the practice has greatly increased. I have in my hand a number of photographs of London schools showing cars parked solidly outside the exits and children coming out in between the cars into the traffic. In at least three cases there is a taxicab rank outside a school exit in London. In one case, in Westminster, the parents have taken the matter into their own hands. They secured a "No Parking" Metropolitan Police sign and erected it outside the school. They had a procession outside the school and are endeavouring to prevent the parking of cars there. At another school, this time in Lambeth, after three children had been knocked down outside the school, the local authority had a "No Parking" sign painted on the road. I gather that it has no legal force, but it is proving effective.
The Minister has adequate powers to deal with this sort of thing. We are now familiar with the "No Waiting" signs erected in streets for the purpose

of avoiding traffic congestion and easing the flow of traffic. Local authorities have asked for something to be done on the same lines to prevent parking outside school exits. A memorandum was submitted to the London and Home Counties Advisory Committee by a number of local authorities. It came from the Southwark Metropolitan Borough Council and was supported by Bethnal Green, Hammersmith, and Stepney. It asked for some action to be taken to prevent parking outside school exits. The same request was made in memoranda from Kingston-upon-Thames and from Potters Bar.
One would have thought that serious consideration would have given to the subject by the Committee, but on reading its recommendations to my right hon. Friend I cannot feel that it has given this matter the consideration it deserves. In the paragraph of the recommendations dealing with the matter it states:
The Sub-Committee gave careful consideration to the Memorandum of which mention has already been made in this Report which has been put forward by the Southwark Metropolitan Borough Council. This Memorandum, which had received the support of the Metropolitan Boroughs' Standing Joint Committee and also of certain other local authorities, suggested that waiting should be generally prohibited near schools. Other local authorities had suggested that there should be similar prohibitions near entrances to hospitals and parks.
I would point out to the House that this is the recommendation which comes some twenty-one years after the Road Safety Committee's report had made it—twenty-two years during which the traffic has increased enormously and parking on the roads has become much heavier, with a consequent increase in the danger. In face of all this, the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee's recommendation to the Minister is as follows—and I should like to read this sentence by sentence and interpose my comments. The first is that the Committee
appreciated that considerable deliveries had to be made to schools and hospitals and that in any case a ban on loading and unloading would be inappropriate".
We know that there is a ban on loading and unloading in streets where the "No Waiting" sign has been erected for the purpose of helping the flow of traffic; little consideration is given by the Committee to the question of inconvenience to the loaders and unloaders of


the delivery vans when it has been thought necessary to put "No Waiting" signs in a street in order to avoid congestion. Furthermore, there surely cannot be an enormous number of deliveries to schools, and in any case they could be prevented during the time that the pupils go to and from the school.
Only the other day I noticed that the police readily removed all the cars from outside the school at St. Martin-in-the Fields for the purpose of a memorial service to the late Joshua White. It may seem a cynical comment, perhaps, that they will do it for the dead but not to save children's lives.
The recommendation goes on:
They also thought that it might be unjustifiable to impose restrictions all day when they were only needed to deal with difficulties for short periods of the day".
Yet, elsewhere in the recommendations, the Committee recommended short periods for different streets affected by peak shopping hours and so on. I should have thought that there might be short "No Waiting" periods for the time when children were going to and from school. Then the report goes on:
It was also represented to them that cars frequently had to wait near hospitals when patients were being picked up, and near schools when parents had come to fetch children. It seemed to the Sub-Committee that it would be most inconvenient if this practice were to be restricted and it did not seem that any general rule was possible or desirable".
To suggest that parents would like the school exits and entrances kept clear of parked vehicles just so that they could be relieved of walking a few paces to fetch their children from the school gate to a car is something beyond my comprehension. In any case, as the photographs which I have will show, parents could not possibly drive their cars to the exits to these schools except by means of double-bank parking; so that argument of the Committee seems to me to fall to the ground. The Committee then states:
The Sub-Committee have decided to recommend that no general restriction should be imposed but that restrictions in individual streets might be considered".
Would any of those considerations which the Committee have applied to the parking of vehicles outside school exits be applied in putting "No Waiting" restrictions on the ordinary streets? I

can find them nowhere else in the recommendations of this Committee. The Committee use these arguments only in connection with the school exits.
I understand that the Minister has written to local authorities about his acceptance of those recommendations from the Committee, pointing out the arguments which the Committee have used concerning the parking of cars outside school exits. I asked my hon. Friend on 19th March whether "No Waiting" signs could be used for preventing parking of vehicles in the vicinity of school exits, and I received the reply:
No, Sir; in our view it is preferable that proposals for waiting restrictions outside schools should be considered on their merits in the same way as waiting restrictions generally."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th March. 1958; Vol. 584, c. 1266.]
Does that reply, that each case is to be treated on its merits, mean that nothing is being done about it? So far as I know, no school has been considered yet for "No Waiting" signs to be erected. It seems the same story that one frequently gets from this Ministry—that regulations will be imposed if it is a matter of relieving congestion. Relief of congestion seems to be the sacred cow of my right hon. Friend's Department. If one suggests that regulations should be made for the sake of safety, one seems to come up against a blank wall.
I want to stop the parking of vehicles outside school exits, not so that cars can speed past schools, but directly to stop something which, in the words used by the Road Safety Committee in 1936, "militates against the safety of children." In its recommendations, the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee was wholly wrong; it did not consider the matter fully from the point of view of the safety of children. My right hon. Friend was wrong in accepting those recommendations.

12.3 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I must acknowledge the interest of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) in road safety and the continuous work he puts in to promote this interest. I congratulate him upon securing the Adjournment tonight, even if the debate has taken us into tomorow.
We are debating a subject which is of very great importance. Contrary to my hon. Friend's assertion I assure him that the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee gave very serious consideration to this matter. It had before it a proposal by the Southwark Metropolitan Borough Council, backed by the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, and gave it very careful consideration indeed.
The proposal was for a general prohibition of waiting outside schools. In the event, it advised against a general regulation which would make a universal restriction against waiting outside schools. It recommended that each case should be considered on its merits, and we have accepted that advice. This means that local authorities and education authorities can apply such restrictions if they think they are needed. In the London traffic area, this application would require our approval. We should then consult the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and, if there was a good case for it, we should approve the proposal. Outside London, except on trunk roads, these proposals for waiting restrictions are made by local authorities and do not require our approval at all. I accept my hon. Friend's contention that parking may be a danger, and if it is we should like to see a waiting restriction. In the light of what I have said, there really is no difficulty in getting such a waiting restriction imposed where one is needed outside a school. On the other hand, there are good reasons for not making an universal "blanket" regulation to apply outside all schools.
In addition to the reasons which my hon. Friend recited as mentioned by the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee, I should like to mention one or two more which I think he should take into account. First, many schools have patrols to control traffic and to see children safely across the road when they are entering and leaving school. Obviously, where such patrols exist, nothing more is needed to ensure the safety of children when they are crossing the road.
Secondly, many schools are in quiet residential areas with their entrances on side streets where the parking of cars would cause no danger at all. For instance, many of them are in cul-de-sacs, in which case there would be no danger

even if cars parked on both sides of the street. Many schools in country areas have entrances on quiet country roads where there is no danger whatever. In my own village, Dunsfold, there is a school on the green, and there is no danger of any kind from cars standing there.
It would be ridiculous to make blanket regulations covering all these schools. The restriction needs to be an individual restriction designed to meet the needs of the particular school and the road concerned. It would be really impossible to design a universal regulation which would correctly define the length of road to be restricted to suit all cases. Where-ever restrictions are applied unreasonably and without sufficient justification, motorists tend to break them and to park their cars on such stretches of road. This increases the strain on the resources of the police in trying to make enforcement effective and generally tends to bring the law into disrepute. It clearly is not desirable to place restrictions on lengths of roads which could in no circumstances need them.
I think these are convincing reasons against a blanket restriction and for the treatment of each case on its merits. I assure my hon. Friend that his allegation that the avoidance of the congestion of traffic is the sacred cow of our Ministry is really quite mistaken. We have, naturally to consider it. Traffic flow is an essential matter for the life of the country, but we consider it equally with road safety.
I would remind my hon. Friend that much
bad driving results from congestion, from the sense of sheer frustration of the drivers concerned. Therefore, in the interests of road safety alone, apart altogether from commercial interests, it is of vital importance to give traffic congestion a high priority in our considerations. However, I can assure my hon. Friend that we do not at any time overlook the road safety factor. I should like to leave him in no doubt that I am concerned to do everything possible to improve road safety generally, and, in particular, for our school children. Indeed, some of our most valuable and effective work in road safety is done in the schools.
Parents have a natural and primary concern to teach their children the


dangers of the road and how to avoid them. But our schools can do, and are doing, much to bring these lessons home to the children. It rests, of course, with the local education authorities and the schools themselves to decide how and when road safety training shall be included in the curriculum. Most schools are only too glad to accept the help of the police and of our local road safety committees to help them in this direction—teaching the children the simple rules of kerb drill and giving the older children cycling training as well. As my hon. Friend knows, we are about to make this cycle training into a national training scheme all over the country.
I am glad to be able to record that the value of this patient, devoted work is now to be seen in the accident record. Despite the fact that today there is more than double the number of vehicles on the roads over pre-war, the number of fatal accidents among children of from 5 to 14 was last year the lowest ever recorded, and all child casualties show a downward trend. They are still distressingly high. Each one is a tragedy, and we must never relax our efforts to reduce them to vanishing point if we can, but the record does show that the road safety training in schools is giving these young lives a greater protection against the dangers of the roads.
There can be no finer reward for the devoted labours of parents, teachers, police, and road safety workers than the results which these records show, or greater encouragement to them to redouble their efforts. They are not only saving the lives and limbs of these young children, but they are training the coming adult generation to be more aware of the dangers of the roads and better able, therefore, to avoid them; and in their turn to teach their children so that their children will have a better chance in days to come. We find in road safety work that it is a matter of the greatest difficulty to make an impact on the adult mind, but children, whose minds are open, are ready to learn, and thereby get far greater protection against the dangers of the roads.
I can assure my hon. Friend that I will leave nothing undone to help in this work. I can also assure him that no reasonable application for a waiting restriction outside a school is refused, and if at any time he has a case where he thinks a restriction has been wrongly refused, I will gladly and without delay look into it. I do hope, therefore, I have left my hon. Friend in no doubt at all that we take this matter just as seriously as he does—indeed more so, for I have to deal continually with matters of road safety, and no aspect of my work concerns me more.
However, I am convinced that in this matter it would be wrong to put a blanket, universal prohibition on waiting outside schools. In thousands of cases it would make complete nonsense and would do more harm than good, but wherever there is real justification for it we shall not hesitate to back or approve an application, or, on the other hand, bless a local authority which proceeds on its own account to do so. I do very much hope my hon. Friend is reassured.

Mr. Page: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend for indicating that he will consider applications which may be received from local authorities, but does he not think that the letter which has gone out to local authorities rather prevents them from making applications? Will he consider with the Minister whether a letter may go out to local authorities indicating what he has said here tonight, that the Minister would be willing to consider applications from local authorities for the restrictions to be applied outside schools?

Mr. Nugent: What I have said is on the record. There need be no doubt about that. I have explained that outside London it is for local authorities to make these restrictions themselves. As to within the London traffic area, I will have a further look at this letter to see if further amplification is needed, but the assurance I have given certainly stands.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.